5th ed. definitely revitalized interest in the game after the disappointment many felt with 4th. But just how popular is it compared to AD&D?
The Player's Handbook for 5th during its 10-year lifecycle is said to have sold around 1.6 million copies. That's a lot.
The Player's Handbook for 1st. during its?
1.5 million.
That's a marginal difference really. And given that 1st. existed before the internet it could be argued its performance is the more impressive of the two. Not to mention it was a time when many a player did not own a copy of the rules. When players weren't even expected to be familiar with the rules. It was a time when the rules were seen as a resource for the game's referee.
It has already been mentioned on these forums how poorly 5th. has performed in other markets. The 2014 Player's Handbook sold fewer than 10,000 copies in Japan. That's compared to 100,000 copies of the Mentzer red box that sold in just its first year in Japan. The game was popular here during the '80s. The decade said by many to have seen the game at its peak.
I think the popularity of 5th. is overstated. D&D outsells its competitors. In the English-speaking world. It pretty much always has. But how does this translate into 5th. being a more popular game than every other edition ever was? The game has become more mainstream. Has lost much of its stigma. Does this mean it has become more popular? Sales figures say otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
What is it you're looking to accomplish here? I'm genuinely curious because I can't imagine anything constructive coming from asserting an opinion that D&D 5E's popularity is "overstated" or stating 1E's rules were a "resource for the game's referee" as if that's any less true of 5E. Maybe it's just me, but I've been playing since AD&D 2E and I'm thoroughly bored with squabbling over differences between editions.
5th ed. definitely revitalized interest in the game after the disappointment many felt with 4th. But just how popular is it compared to AD&D?
The Player's Handbook for 5th during its 10-year lifecycle is said to have sold around 1.6 million copies. That's a lot.
The Player's Handbook for 1st. during its?
1.5 million.
That's a marginal difference really. And given that 1st. existed before the internet it could be argued its performance is the more impressive of the two. Not to mention it was a time when many a player did not own a copy of the rules. When players weren't even expected to be familiar with the rules. It was a time when the rules were seen as a resource for the game's referee.
It has already been mentioned on these forums how poorly 5th. has performed in other markets. The 2014 Player's Handbook sold fewer than 10,000 copies in Japan. That's compared to 100,000 copies of the Mentzer red box that sold in just its first year in Japan. The game was popular here during the '80s. The decade said by many to have seen the game at its peak.
I think the popularity of 5th. is overstated. D&D outsells its competitors. In the English-speaking world. It pretty much always has. But how does this translate into 5th. being a more popular game than every other edition ever was? The game has become more mainstream. Has lost much of its stigma. Does this mean it has become more popular? Sales figures say otherwise.
I expect they will cite to a source called BookScan for their 5e numbers, as that seems to be the number from that source. This has become a very popular source among those who want to say 5e is failing, because the numbers are fairly low.
However, it is a completely useless source for D&D, as if only monitors a very small sample of sales channels - none of which are the primary distribution of D&D. This is an extremely disingenuous source to cite and anyone who does cite it in this context either is misinformed as to its accuracy or attempting to push misinformation.
Essentially, citing to BookScan in this context is like saying “Dominos is unpopular” based entirely on their in-store sales number, while ignoring internet and phone orders - their primary business channels.
I expect they will cite to a source called BookScan for their 5e numbers, as that seems to be the number from that source. This has become a very popular source among those who want to say 5e is failing, because the numbers are fairly low.
However, it is a completely useless source for D&D, as if only monitors a very small sample of sales channels - none of which are the primary distribution of D&D. This is an extremely disingenuous source to cite and anyone who does cite it in this context either is misinformed as to its accuracy or attempting to push misinformation.
Essentially, citing to BookScan in this context is like saying “Dominos is unpopular” based entirely on their in-store sales number, while ignoring internet and phone orders - their primary business channels.
So when NPR or PBS or some other public broadcaster uses BookScan as a source for book sales in a piece of theirs—and they do on occasion—they are being 'disingenuous'? Or is it only when people use that source to show sales for a product you like? What's disingenuous is making up the rules at your own convenience. That is to be mired in disingenuity. Because it shows you don't care about what is true as much as you do what is expedient. Kind of like when you lied about what it says in the first edition DMG about grids and miniatures. But I'm expected to believe you're no fan of disingenuity?
What is the 'primary distribution' channel for sales of D&D books? D&D Beyond? Hardly. More than Amazon? Or are you suggesting digital sales now dominate? Because every time someone says Wizards of the Coast want to see D&D become more of a digital commodity and not a book-based one you're among the first people to shut them down and call them 'conspiracy theorists.' Now you're going to say consumer trends are proving them right? Or is that more of that making things up at your convenience? I suppose Wizards themselves have 'nothing' to do with those trends? It's just coincidence?
None of what you said goes anywhere towards addressing my point about AD&D sales and how these took place before the internet.
1.5. million copies of the first edition PHB ain't nothing.
Just how many more than 1.6 million copies do you reckon the 2014 PHB sold?
Be honest. And be realistic.
None of what you said goes anywhere towards addressing my point about how recent editions of the game have performed in Japan, either. Compared to how well older editions did here.
You basically took one thing and one thing only: BookScan. Then produced a response that is nothing more than conjecture. Guessing that the book's performance must be somehow exponentially greater than the number they can provide to tell yourself the game is uber-popular and must be leagues ahead of AD&D in popularity. Were it as popular as the rhetoric claims Wizards would have no hesitation providing hard numbers. Instead all they can do is say this latest PHB is 'the fastest selling.' The 4th. ed PHB was 'the fastest selling' when it first came out. Sales declined. And it has gone on to be the worst selling edition in the game's history. 'the fastest selling' is meaningless. It is corporate speak.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
I expect they will cite to a source called BookScan for their 5e numbers, as that seems to be the number from that source. This has become a very popular source among those who want to say 5e is failing, because the numbers are fairly low.
However, it is a completely useless source for D&D, as if only monitors a very small sample of sales channels - none of which are the primary distribution of D&D. This is an extremely disingenuous source to cite and anyone who does cite it in this context either is misinformed as to its accuracy or attempting to push misinformation.
Essentially, citing to BookScan in this context is like saying “Dominos is unpopular” based entirely on their in-store sales number, while ignoring internet and phone orders - their primary business channels.
So when NPR or PBS or some other public broadcaster uses BookScan as a source for book sales in a piece of theirs—and they do on occasion—they are being 'disingenuous'? Or is it only when people use that source to show sales for a product you like? What's disingenuous is making up the rules at your own convenience. That is to be mired in disingenuity. Because it shows you don't care about what is true as much as you do what is expedient.
What is the 'primary distribution' channel for sales of D&D books? D&D Beyond? Hardly. More than Amazon? Or are you suggesting digital sales now dominate? Because every time someone says Wizards of the Coast want to see D&D become more of a digital commodity and not a book-based one you're among the first people to shut them down and call them 'conspiracy theorists.' Now you're going to say consumer trends are proving them right? But Wizards themselves have 'nothing' to do with those trends? It's just coiuncidence?
None of what you said goes anywhere towards addressing my point about AD&D sales and how these took place before the internet.
Just how many more than 1.6 million copies do you reckon the 2014 PHB sold?
Be honest. And be realistic.
None of what you said goes anywhere towards addressing my point about how recent editions of the game have performed in Japan, either. Compared to how well older editions did here.
You basically took one thing and one thing only: BookScan. Then produced a response that is nothing more than conjecture. Guessing that the book's performance must be somehow exponentially greater than the number they can provide to tell yourself the game is uber-popular. Were it as popular as the rhetoric claims. Wizards would have no hesitation providing hard numbers. Instead all they can do is say this book is 'the fastest selling.' The 4th. ed PHB was 'the fastest selling' when it first came out. Sales declined. And it has gone on to be the worst selling edition in the game's history. 'the fastest selling' is meaningless. It is corporate speak.
You are vastly mischaracterizing my post in such a way that either proves you did not read it or you ignored the relevant portion that specifically mentioned BookScan was “completely useless source for D&D” and specified “in this context.” That, of course., makes me hesitant to respond again. However, when someone is spreading misinformation - whether intentionally or not, and I am trying not to make assumptions - as you are doing, I think it is important to show why that information is wrongly applied, lest someone think there is any merit in your figure.
BookScan looks primarily at traditional book stores - it does not take into account things like Local Game stores (which is where the majority of Wizards’ product is sold per statements by Wizards that are legally required to be accurate), or D&D Beyond or other digital sales. Accordingly, it simply does not take into account the biggest sales points and, on its face, is useless. Furthermore, places like Amazon often quantify D&D products not as book sales, but under their games category, which are not reported to BookScan in the same way.
So, while the source may be useful for something like a traditional book, between outright missing data from the largest marketplaces of D&D products, and the reporting being inconsistent even from sources that otherwise might report if things were categorized differently, it has absolutely no merit to this product.
I will also point out, all of this is not new information on these forums - and it is not even new information to you. It was all pointed out previously from multiple users on a thread you posted on. So, you really should have known better than to trust those numbers, and I am hopeful this time you think about them more critically and internalize their flaws in this context.
or stating 1E's rules were a "resource for the game's referee" as if that's any less true of 5E
It is less true of 5E. It has been less true of the game since 3rd. edition if not even 2nd.
It has become the norm for players to own and read the rules, to care more about the letter of the rules over the spirit of them, to 'build' characters based on their having read the rules and not just roll up characters, to try to 'beat' the rules by making choices mostly or even strictly for purposes of combat performance whether or not those choices make any narrative sense, to expect that a DM will genuflect before the rules and not say this or that class won't have this or that feature because it says it does on page whatever, etc., etc., etc.
I have been playing since around 1983. It's not as if a whole movement did not begin in the early 2000s to return to a style of play that rejects all of above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
You are vastly mischaracterizing my post in such a way that either proves you did not read it or you ignored the relevant portion that specifically mentioned BookScan was “completely useless source for D&D” and specified “in this context.” That, of course., makes me hesitant to respond again. However, when someone is spreading misinformation - whether intentionally or not, and I am trying not to make assumptions - as you are doing, I think it is important to show why that information is wrongly applied, lest someone think there is any merit in your figure.
BookScan looks primarily at traditional book stores - it does not take into account things like Local Game stores (which is where the majority of Wizards’ product is sold per statements by Wizards that are legally required to be accurate), or D&D Beyond or other digital sales. Accordingly, it simply does not take into account the biggest sales points and, on its face, is useless. Furthermore, places like Amazon often quantify D&D products not as book sales, but under their games category, which are not reported to BookScan in the same way.
So, while the source may be useful for something like a traditional book, between outright missing data from the largest marketplaces of D&D products, and the reporting being inconsistent even from sources that otherwise might report if things were categorized differently, it has absolutely no merit to this product.
I will also point out, all of this is not new information on these forums - and it is not even new information to you. It was all pointed out previously from multiple users on a thread you posted on. So, you really should have known better than to trust those numbers, and I am hopeful this time you think about them more critically and internalize their flaws in this context.
Does BookScan not register book sales from game stores? Do you know this for certain? Neither BookScan nor Amazon even existed when AD&D was around but we managed to get numbers for its sales. Because sales are reported. BookScan or no BookScan. Sales that mostly would have taken place at game and toy stores. BookScan register those for independent booksellers as well as online bookstores. Why not hobby shops and particularly when some of them their main products are books? How about comic book shops? Do you 'know' all that you have posted regarding BookScan or is this just you making things up like you made up what it says in the first edition DMG about grids and miniatures? Yeah. You invoke the word 'disingenuity' but you have shown a number of times on these forums you're more than capable of it ... then you expect me to believe you're all about honesty when it comes to D&D. Are you saying sales from online game retailers whose main products are game books don't register? Saying that with certainty?
I haven't said whether or not my source is BookScan. But it's the apparent shortcomings of BookScan on which you are building your entire case against what I have said. That 1.5 million copies of the 1978 PHB figure did not come from BookScan did it? BookScan didn't exist.
You didn't answer my question: How many copies more than 1.6 million do you reckon the 2014 PHB has sold?
And you have ignored my point about a product's being 'the fastest selling.' The 4th. ed PHB was the fastest selling when it came out. 'the fastest selling' is meaningless. A record could come out tomorrow and be the artist's 'fastest selling' because a large number of fans buy it in a short amount of time. Sales could then decline. It could go on to be the artist's worst overall performing album as well as the artist's most critically trashed album. History hasn't been kind to 4th. ed. that's for sure.
Are you unaware that many products on Amazon fall into more than one category? In fact when this very conversation was taking place once before it took the simplest of searches to see that the new 2024 books show up as books as well as 'toys.' They are categorized as both. I can screenshot Amazon with BOOKS shown right above the 2024 PHB. Why would those sales not register? Are you 100 percent certain they don't? Why? Just because?
You also evaded my point about digital sales and digitization of the hobby and what you yourself have said in this past in this regard. Chalk that up as another example of how honesty isn't your greatest concern when it comes to D&D.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Does BookScan not register book sales from game stores? Do you know this for certain? Neither Bookscan nor Amazon even exist when AD&D was around but we managed to get numbers for its sales. Sales that mostly would have taken place at game stores. Bookscan register those for independent booksellers as well as online bookstores. Why not hobby shops and particularly when some of them their main products are books?
BookScan relies on point of sale data from a number of major book sellers. In 2009, BookScan's US Consumer Market Panel covered 75% of retail sales.
Then from the "use of bookscan" section
BookScan records cash register sales of books by tracking ISBNs when a clerk scans the barcode. BookScan only tracks print book sales
...
BookScan likewise does not include non-retail sales through channels such as libraries, nor specialty retailers who do not report to the service
If you do a tiny bit of research (ie googling "who reports to Bookscan") you can find out this from the ABA (American Booksellers Association):
Can bookstores still report to Nielsen?
No. All independent bookstores must report through the ABA in order to report to BookScan. Any processes for stores to transmit sales reports to Nielsen are no longer functional and have not been functional since October 2022.
Can all bookstores report their sales to Circana BookScan?
Circana BookScan accepts reporting from brick-and-mortar stores through ABA, which is Circana BookScan’s aggregator of independent bookstore sales data. They are unable to accept reporting from ecommerce-only, pop-up, mobile, or used stores.
So unless a gaming store is registered with the ABA—which seems unlikely given that to register a bricks-and-mortar store must meet one or more of the following criteria:
Businesses that primarily sell new books and define themselves as a new bookstore, though they might also sell used books (store inventory is over 50% new books vs used)
Businesses that primarily sell new books (over 50% of store inventory consists of new books vs. non-book merchandise)
Businesses that sell new books in the physical world, as opposed to the digital world. This includes traditional bookstores, pop-up bookstores, and mobile stores.
Businesses that create community through bookselling.
So it's very clear that the vast majority of gaming stores would not even be able to report to Bookscan, so that segment of physical sales is being ignored.
Neither Bookscan nor Amazon even exist when AD&D was around but we managed to get numbers for its sales
Because before Bookscan book sales were reported to Neilsen (the people who also do stuff like TV viewing figures). Also TSR would self report their sales numbers, something that is not a common practice today. But I've found the likely source for your 1.5m figure: a completely unsourced blog that apparently gathers numbers from two different places without sourcing those places. I'm not saying the number are wrong, but they're certainly not reliable.
The point is that Bookscan numbers are at best only reporting a segment of a segment of sales (physical sales through a selection of retailers) so relying on those numbers is probably foolish.
Apparently, AD&D sold 4,6 million copies, all said. And 5e sold 2,39 million for the segments BookScan can track. Add to that whatever else you can think of - DNDB, all the VVT's with their versions of the rules, and so on. In the end, those figures are irrelevant. Here's what I figure is interesting:
Apparently, around 2 million people played the game back in 1981. And today, that number is more like 20 million.
All those 20 million people spend money on something. Is it books? Maybe. Propably. But it could also by movie tickets, video games, subscriptions - and so on. Basically, Hasbro wouldn't have bought the business if it was in decline.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Looking into BookScan, and it doesn't seem reliable for 5e. There are several problems with it.
- It wasn't started until 2001, so we already have problems of having different metrics for measuring sales.
- It only tracks major retailers. Aside from Amazon, D&D isn't really sold through major retailers. I just checked - my "local" major bookstore (I say local, it's a good hour round trip sells it...for significantly more than my LGS (which won't be tracked by BookScan) that's in walking distance, and sell it for more than my LGS charges for the alternate cover edition.
- BookScan does not track digital. That's very relevant because digital was basically not a thing back in the 80s, whereas now, it's a large proportion of the sales.
- On top of that, of the fifteen copies of the PHB I know have been purchased, precisely one has (potentially) been through means that might have been tracked by BookScan (namely, I bought my first PHB through Amazon). While I'm not going to say that's representative of the true ratio, it is illustrative that 1.6 million isn't reliably representative. That could represent as many as 20 million (if my anecdotal experience is representative)...or maybe 2 million. We just don't know and can't say.
That last point is the real issue - we can't really use BookScan to mean anything other than a minimum. We know that 5e sold at least 1.6 million copies. Beyond that? It doesn't mean much at all.
Is 5e overhyped? In terms of the game, yes. It's a good game, but not so good to warrant the dominance of the market that it enjoys based on merit. That leads back into the discussion - in terms of sales, we don't know. TTRPGs have exploded from "weird kids who don't go out play them, if you've even heard of them at all" to "the cool kids are doing it" in the last decade or so, and 5e has been leading that charge. 1.6 million seems awfully low for such a cultural phenomenon.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So basically your point seems to hinge on some spuriously selective accounting.
Thanks for what is an informative reply.
That criteria however would be met by shops whose only or primary product is role-playing games: primarily selling (game) books, primarily selling new books, primarily selling physical books, creating community through bookselling.
Yes. TRPGs are sold in toy and game shops. But they are also sold in shops that just sell role-playing games. Or shops that just sell comics and role-playing games. These sorts of shops would meet that criteria. They are also sold in regular bookstores. Which obviously do.
'spuriously selective accounting' is what I would call taking early sales figures and asserting these are any indication of how well something is subsequently selling or will sell in its lifecycle. I have already mentioned twice how 4th. ed. sold very well at the start but then sales declined.
How quickly something sells in the month following its release tells us very little. It is when something is released when it's going to enjoy a higher rate of sales. As I mentioned before: Here in Japan the 2014 PHB sold as few as 10,000 copies over ten years. If upon its release it outperformed an edition that had sold even better over time then who cares?
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Is 5e overhyped? In terms of the game, yes. It's a good game, but not so good to warrant the dominance of the market that it enjoys based on merit. That leads back into the discussion - in terms of sales, we don't know. TTRPGs have exploded from "weird kids who don't go out play them, if you've even heard of them at all" to "the cool kids are doing it" in the last decade or so, and 5e has been leading that charge. 1.6 million seems awfully low.
I agree with much of what you say here but Freaks and Geeks which aired between 1999 and 2000 showed even then in its depiction of what D&D looked like in the '80s yes the awkward kids who played the game but how it could very much appeal to the cool kids. One such cool kid's arc ends with him becoming a gamer.
I have been playing TRPGs since 1983 and played in groups during the '80s and the '90s with a mix of local kids: some who 'did well at school' shall we say and kids who played in local bands and so on.
'Cool kids' have always played D&D. The only reason we hear or read this refrain now is because the media have picked up on it or because Wizards are revising history to make them look as if their the saviors of the hobby.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
That criteria however would be met by shops whose only or primary product is role-playing games: primarily selling (game) books, primarily selling new books, primarily selling physical books, creating community through bookselling.
Firstly, all information I could find on the ABA indicates that being a comic book retailer does not qualify as a bookseller. Comic books are classes as magazines, not books.
Secondly I have never in my life encountered a gaming store that sells just TTRPG books. I'm not saying they don't exist, but as someone who makes a point to seek out LGS's every time I visit a new city, I've never encountered this. They always sell ancillary products and it's pretty much established across the industry that these stores are held up by trading card sales and the like. These combined facts would be very indicative that the vast majority of gaming stores would even qualify, let alone apply for a paid membership to an organisation. My point that the main outlets for TTRPG books are likely not reporting to Bookscan still stands.
'spuriously selective accounting' is what I would call taking early sales figures and asserting these are any indication of how well something is subsequently selling or will sell in its lifecycle. I have already mentioned twice how 4th. ed. sold very well at the start but then sales declined.
I did no such thing, I simply pointed out how questionable it is to base the success on D&D 5th edition vs 1st edition based on PHB sales and exclude the 2024 PHB. I then supported my claim by pointing to how all signs indicate the 2024 PHB being even more successful in sales than the 2014. I did however make a small error in my claim—the 2024 PHB sold more in just English in 1 month than the 2014 PHB sold in all languages in 2 years.
Oh, speaking of languages:
As I mentioned before: Here in Japan the 2014 PHB sold as few as 10,000 copies over ten years.
So what? I'm sure there are Japanese published TTRPGS that have sold insanely well locally that have next to zero international penetration. In the TTRPG sphere, localisation is a huge barrier marketwide. This proves nothing more than "localising rules is a barrier for all TTRPGs". Tormenta 20 is a household name in the gaming sphere in Brazil, but almost no one has heard of it outside of it's local market.
Once again, you're cherry picking and drawing nonsensical through lines.
This all seems very intellectually dishonest to me
'Cool kids' have always played D&D. The only reason we hear or read this refrain now is because the media have picked up on it or because Wizards are revising history to make them look as if their the saviors of the hobby.
The "cool kids playing D&D" is a trope because it subverts expectations. You even reference this yourself:
I agree with much of what you say here but Freaks and Geeks which aired between 1999 and 2000 showed even then in its depiction of what D&D looked like in the '80s yes the awkward kids who played the game but how it could very much appeal to the cool kids. One such cool kid's arc ends with him becoming a gamer.
No one is revising history, D&D genuinely has more wide/general appeal and has thrown off a lot of the baggage around being a game for losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries.
No one is revising history, D&D genuinely has more wide/general appeal and has thrown off a lot of the baggage around being a game for losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries.
A single 'comic' might qualify as a serial. A graphic novel is a monograph. And most comic book stores are full of the things. Of reprints of multiple issues of comic books.
I grew up in Australia which even in the '90s and early 2000s was home to a number of stores that just sold role-playing games—don't see why that wouldn't be the case now if they are 'more popular' than ever. While I never lived in either city I'd visit one of these in Canberra and one of these in Sydney whenever I would visit. Given the closest to a 'Friendly Local Game Store' in my hometown was a local bookshop. Melbourne was home to one. I would get their catalogues and order games from them. Now it sells other things. Maybe because role-playing games aren't as popular as they used to be. And it has to sell other things to survive. Who knows?
There are also a number of online stores that exclusively sell role-playing games. No. I am not mentioning them to suggest BookScan must record their numbers. Just pointing out how wrong you are to believe every store that sells a TRPG must sell Magic: The Gathering to stay alive.
If that's what you were doing then you were engaging in spurious accounting: because they are two different titles. We can pointlessly debate over whether 2024 and 2014 are the same game or not. They are not the same book. I could just as easily argue that every single reproduction of this or that edition must be counted towards its sales figures. Or that the differences between this or that older edition were even more marginal and so their sales figures ought to be combined.
The Mentzer red box sold exceptionally well in Japan. Ten timesmore in a single year (100,000) than the the 2014 PHB sold in ten years (10,000). Your point about 'penetration' is a cop-out excuse. D&D used to do well here. Used to. Call of Cthulhu now outperforms D&D in Japan. Not just domestic games.
No. You're rewriting history. It was no more a game for 'losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries' than it could be argued that it is today. Many might argue it has in fact become how it was often merely stereotyped. How many today play online because they otherwise have no one in their lives they would call 'friends'? How many today who play spend more time on social media or even here than they do around a table playing the game? And I could go on.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
No. You're rewriting history. It was no more a game for 'losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries' than it could be argued that it is today.
You're failing to actually read what I'm saying. I said it had that baggage, not that was an accurate statement of the games nature. If you want to claim that wasn't the case, and people weren't disdainful of D&D and those who played it, then you're the one rewriting history.
No. You're rewriting history. It was no more a game for 'losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries' than it could be argued that it is today.
You're failing to actually read what I'm saying. I said it had that baggage, not that was an accurate statement of the games nature. If you want to claim that wasn't the case, and people weren't disdainful of D&D and those who played it, then you're the one rewriting history.
No. I wouldn't make that claim. But then neither would I claim it has none of it no more. It does. As I pointed out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Is 5e overhyped? In terms of the game, yes. It's a good game, but not so good to warrant the dominance of the market that it enjoys based on merit. That leads back into the discussion - in terms of sales, we don't know. TTRPGs have exploded from "weird kids who don't go out play them, if you've even heard of them at all" to "the cool kids are doing it" in the last decade or so, and 5e has been leading that charge. 1.6 million seems awfully low.
I agree with much of what you say here but Freaks and Geeks which aired between 1999 and 2000 showed even then in its depiction of what D&D looked like in the '80s yes the awkward kids who played the game but how it could very much appeal to the cool kids. One such cool kid's arc ends with him becoming a gamer.
I have been playing TRPGs since 1983 and played in groups during the '80s and the '90s with a mix of local kids: some who 'did well at school' shall we say and kids who played in local bands and so on.
'Cool kids' have always played D&D. The only reason we hear or read this refrain now is because the media have picked up on it or because Wizards are revising history to make them look as if their the saviors of the hobby.
I’ve also been playing since ‘83, so yeah!! Twinning!! D&D is exponentially more popular now than it was then. That is not even arguable. It may have been infamous in the 80’s, but its notoriety came from people who didn’t know what they were talking about spouting off about the game. Not from people actually playing and enjoying it. The ignorant hate has largely gone away and now its fame stems from people actually playing and having a real, informed opinion.
Picking one tv show and suggesting that is an accurate representation of society is pretty absurd. It might show what the showrunner thinks, but that’s hardly universal. Ime, any cool kids who were playing back then were either trying to be edgy because of the satanic panic, or they hid the fact that they played because in the 80’s admitting you played D&D was a social death sentence.
But back to an earlier question: [citation needed]. There’s a lot of arguing about bookscan. Is that, indeed what you are using or are you just fabricating numbers entirely? It will be helpful to understand.
And to add a new question: Is there a point to this? I guess you prefer 1e.🤷♂️ If so, cool, go play it. It’s a fun game. But beyond that, so what? Why come here and hassle those of us who enjoy, or even prefer this version? Are you trying to convince those of us who like 5e that we shouldn’t? Or that we don’t actually like it? Or that other people don’t? What’s the end game here?
I think its factual to say that we don't really have any conclusive or even marginally reliable sources on the sales of any edition of the game, this has always been the case with D&D. Its not always for the same reasons, meaning TSR for example had very questionable bookkeeping and did self reporting which was a questionable practice as they offered no evidence just their word that the numbers were real. Modern WotC is really no better, they proclaimed D&D the highest grossing game in franchise history, yet offered zero evidence to support that claim. Point is, we have no idea how well either of these games actually sold.
It's worth pointing out however that sales does not translate to popularity nor does popularity equate to quality. If and when anyone does claim either of those two things, its always based a biased opinion of what they want to be true. It has no basis in fact.
Here is what we know about D&D through indisputable evidence. 1st edition AD&D was popular enough that people still play it today, it was popular enough for WotC to re-release the book and sell out every copy they printed and people still clone the rules, release the books and fund projects in the millions using these old rule sets. I don't know what quantifies as a game as "popular", but the overwhelming majority of new products released today don't sell out, while 1st edition AD&D sold out 40 years after its initial release and is still a hot seller today. If they reprinted 1st edition AD&D rulebooks today, it would sell out in a matter of days. That at least says something about its longevity.
In the same token 5e was popular enough that it turn what was once a niche, stigmatized hobby into a popular culture media icon. It was in my day considered embarrassing and a point of shame to admit you played D&D, today its a point of pride. 5th edition and its adoption in the last generation along with social media made that happen. I don't know that this makes it a good game, but it certainly has all the makings to be called "popular" by any definition.
Which one is more popular? What difference does that make? I mean what is the point of that debate or answer? Let's say you could quantify that 1st edition AD&D was more popular than 5e.... what do we do with that information? How does that impact anything? Are 5e players supposed to all of the sudden sell of their books and start play 1st edition? Is that the expectation?
I don't get the logic of the discussion. Are unicorns more popular than dinosaurs? Lets discuss!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
5th ed. definitely revitalized interest in the game after the disappointment many felt with 4th. But just how popular is it compared to AD&D?
The Player's Handbook for 5th during its 10-year lifecycle is said to have sold around 1.6 million copies. That's a lot.
The Player's Handbook for 1st. during its?
1.5 million.
That's a marginal difference really. And given that 1st. existed before the internet it could be argued its performance is the more impressive of the two. Not to mention it was a time when many a player did not own a copy of the rules. When players weren't even expected to be familiar with the rules. It was a time when the rules were seen as a resource for the game's referee.
It has already been mentioned on these forums how poorly 5th. has performed in other markets. The 2014 Player's Handbook sold fewer than 10,000 copies in Japan. That's compared to 100,000 copies of the Mentzer red box that sold in just its first year in Japan. The game was popular here during the '80s. The decade said by many to have seen the game at its peak.
I think the popularity of 5th. is overstated. D&D outsells its competitors. In the English-speaking world. It pretty much always has. But how does this translate into 5th. being a more popular game than every other edition ever was? The game has become more mainstream. Has lost much of its stigma. Does this mean it has become more popular? Sales figures say otherwise.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Citations needed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
What is it you're looking to accomplish here? I'm genuinely curious because I can't imagine anything constructive coming from asserting an opinion that D&D 5E's popularity is "overstated" or stating 1E's rules were a "resource for the game's referee" as if that's any less true of 5E. Maybe it's just me, but I've been playing since AD&D 2E and I'm thoroughly bored with squabbling over differences between editions.
sir, this is a wendy's
pronouns: he/she/they
I expect they will cite to a source called BookScan for their 5e numbers, as that seems to be the number from that source. This has become a very popular source among those who want to say 5e is failing, because the numbers are fairly low.
However, it is a completely useless source for D&D, as if only monitors a very small sample of sales channels - none of which are the primary distribution of D&D. This is an extremely disingenuous source to cite and anyone who does cite it in this context either is misinformed as to its accuracy or attempting to push misinformation.
Essentially, citing to BookScan in this context is like saying “Dominos is unpopular” based entirely on their in-store sales number, while ignoring internet and phone orders - their primary business channels.
So when NPR or PBS or some other public broadcaster uses BookScan as a source for book sales in a piece of theirs—and they do on occasion—they are being 'disingenuous'? Or is it only when people use that source to show sales for a product you like? What's disingenuous is making up the rules at your own convenience. That is to be mired in disingenuity. Because it shows you don't care about what is true as much as you do what is expedient. Kind of like when you lied about what it says in the first edition DMG about grids and miniatures. But I'm expected to believe you're no fan of disingenuity?
What is the 'primary distribution' channel for sales of D&D books? D&D Beyond? Hardly. More than Amazon? Or are you suggesting digital sales now dominate? Because every time someone says Wizards of the Coast want to see D&D become more of a digital commodity and not a book-based one you're among the first people to shut them down and call them 'conspiracy theorists.' Now you're going to say consumer trends are proving them right? Or is that more of that making things up at your convenience? I suppose Wizards themselves have 'nothing' to do with those trends? It's just coincidence?
None of what you said goes anywhere towards addressing my point about AD&D sales and how these took place before the internet.
1.5. million copies of the first edition PHB ain't nothing.
Just how many more than 1.6 million copies do you reckon the 2014 PHB sold?
Be honest. And be realistic.
None of what you said goes anywhere towards addressing my point about how recent editions of the game have performed in Japan, either. Compared to how well older editions did here.
You basically took one thing and one thing only: BookScan. Then produced a response that is nothing more than conjecture. Guessing that the book's performance must be somehow exponentially greater than the number they can provide to tell yourself the game is uber-popular and must be leagues ahead of AD&D in popularity. Were it as popular as the rhetoric claims Wizards would have no hesitation providing hard numbers. Instead all they can do is say this latest PHB is 'the fastest selling.' The 4th. ed PHB was 'the fastest selling' when it first came out. Sales declined. And it has gone on to be the worst selling edition in the game's history. 'the fastest selling' is meaningless. It is corporate speak.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
You are vastly mischaracterizing my post in such a way that either proves you did not read it or you ignored the relevant portion that specifically mentioned BookScan was “completely useless source for D&D” and specified “in this context.” That, of course., makes me hesitant to respond again. However, when someone is spreading misinformation - whether intentionally or not, and I am trying not to make assumptions - as you are doing, I think it is important to show why that information is wrongly applied, lest someone think there is any merit in your figure.
BookScan looks primarily at traditional book stores - it does not take into account things like Local Game stores (which is where the majority of Wizards’ product is sold per statements by Wizards that are legally required to be accurate), or D&D Beyond or other digital sales. Accordingly, it simply does not take into account the biggest sales points and, on its face, is useless. Furthermore, places like Amazon often quantify D&D products not as book sales, but under their games category, which are not reported to BookScan in the same way.
So, while the source may be useful for something like a traditional book, between outright missing data from the largest marketplaces of D&D products, and the reporting being inconsistent even from sources that otherwise might report if things were categorized differently, it has absolutely no merit to this product.
I will also point out, all of this is not new information on these forums - and it is not even new information to you. It was all pointed out previously from multiple users on a thread you posted on. So, you really should have known better than to trust those numbers, and I am hopeful this time you think about them more critically and internalize their flaws in this context.
It is less true of 5E. It has been less true of the game since 3rd. edition if not even 2nd.
It has become the norm for players to own and read the rules, to care more about the letter of the rules over the spirit of them, to 'build' characters based on their having read the rules and not just roll up characters, to try to 'beat' the rules by making choices mostly or even strictly for purposes of combat performance whether or not those choices make any narrative sense, to expect that a DM will genuflect before the rules and not say this or that class won't have this or that feature because it says it does on page whatever, etc., etc., etc.
I have been playing since around 1983. It's not as if a whole movement did not begin in the early 2000s to return to a style of play that rejects all of above.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Does BookScan not register book sales from game stores? Do you know this for certain? Neither BookScan nor Amazon even existed when AD&D was around but we managed to get numbers for its sales. Because sales are reported. BookScan or no BookScan. Sales that mostly would have taken place at game and toy stores. BookScan register those for independent booksellers as well as online bookstores. Why not hobby shops and particularly when some of them their main products are books? How about comic book shops? Do you 'know' all that you have posted regarding BookScan or is this just you making things up like you made up what it says in the first edition DMG about grids and miniatures? Yeah. You invoke the word 'disingenuity' but you have shown a number of times on these forums you're more than capable of it ... then you expect me to believe you're all about honesty when it comes to D&D. Are you saying sales from online game retailers whose main products are game books don't register? Saying that with certainty?
I haven't said whether or not my source is BookScan. But it's the apparent shortcomings of BookScan on which you are building your entire case against what I have said. That 1.5 million copies of the 1978 PHB figure did not come from BookScan did it? BookScan didn't exist.
You didn't answer my question: How many copies more than 1.6 million do you reckon the 2014 PHB has sold?
And you have ignored my point about a product's being 'the fastest selling.' The 4th. ed PHB was the fastest selling when it came out. 'the fastest selling' is meaningless. A record could come out tomorrow and be the artist's 'fastest selling' because a large number of fans buy it in a short amount of time. Sales could then decline. It could go on to be the artist's worst overall performing album as well as the artist's most critically trashed album. History hasn't been kind to 4th. ed. that's for sure.
Are you unaware that many products on Amazon fall into more than one category? In fact when this very conversation was taking place once before it took the simplest of searches to see that the new 2024 books show up as books as well as 'toys.' They are categorized as both. I can screenshot Amazon with BOOKS shown right above the 2024 PHB. Why would those sales not register? Are you 100 percent certain they don't? Why? Just because?
You also evaded my point about digital sales and digitization of the hobby and what you yourself have said in this past in this regard. Chalk that up as another example of how honesty isn't your greatest concern when it comes to D&D.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
No, it doesn't. From the wikipedia page on BookScan, under methodology
Then from the "use of bookscan" section
If you do a tiny bit of research (ie googling "who reports to Bookscan") you can find out this from the ABA (American Booksellers Association):
So unless a gaming store is registered with the ABA—which seems unlikely given that to register a bricks-and-mortar store must meet one or more of the following criteria:
So it's very clear that the vast majority of gaming stores would not even be able to report to Bookscan, so that segment of physical sales is being ignored.
Because before Bookscan book sales were reported to Neilsen (the people who also do stuff like TV viewing figures). Also TSR would self report their sales numbers, something that is not a common practice today. But I've found the likely source for your 1.5m figure: a completely unsourced blog that apparently gathers numbers from two different places without sourcing those places. I'm not saying the number are wrong, but they're certainly not reliable.
The point is that Bookscan numbers are at best only reporting a segment of a segment of sales (physical sales through a selection of retailers) so relying on those numbers is probably foolish.
Also I did some follow up on your 1.6m figure for the PHB. That's just the Bookscan numbers on the 2014 PHB, at 1.56m, and excludes the 2024 PHB which according to WotC has had launch sales x3 that of the 2014 PHB. Apparently in 1 month the 2024 PHB sold more than the 2014 did in 2 years.
So basically your point seems to hinge on some spuriously selective accounting.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Apparently, AD&D sold 4,6 million copies, all said. And 5e sold 2,39 million for the segments BookScan can track. Add to that whatever else you can think of - DNDB, all the VVT's with their versions of the rules, and so on. In the end, those figures are irrelevant. Here's what I figure is interesting:
Apparently, around 2 million people played the game back in 1981. And today, that number is more like 20 million.
All those 20 million people spend money on something. Is it books? Maybe. Propably. But it could also by movie tickets, video games, subscriptions - and so on. Basically, Hasbro wouldn't have bought the business if it was in decline.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Looking into BookScan, and it doesn't seem reliable for 5e. There are several problems with it.
- It wasn't started until 2001, so we already have problems of having different metrics for measuring sales.
- It only tracks major retailers. Aside from Amazon, D&D isn't really sold through major retailers. I just checked - my "local" major bookstore (I say local, it's a good hour round trip sells it...for significantly more than my LGS (which won't be tracked by BookScan) that's in walking distance, and sell it for more than my LGS charges for the alternate cover edition.
- BookScan does not track digital. That's very relevant because digital was basically not a thing back in the 80s, whereas now, it's a large proportion of the sales.
- On top of that, of the fifteen copies of the PHB I know have been purchased, precisely one has (potentially) been through means that might have been tracked by BookScan (namely, I bought my first PHB through Amazon). While I'm not going to say that's representative of the true ratio, it is illustrative that 1.6 million isn't reliably representative. That could represent as many as 20 million (if my anecdotal experience is representative)...or maybe 2 million. We just don't know and can't say.
That last point is the real issue - we can't really use BookScan to mean anything other than a minimum. We know that 5e sold at least 1.6 million copies. Beyond that? It doesn't mean much at all.
Is 5e overhyped? In terms of the game, yes. It's a good game, but not so good to warrant the dominance of the market that it enjoys based on merit. That leads back into the discussion - in terms of sales, we don't know. TTRPGs have exploded from "weird kids who don't go out play them, if you've even heard of them at all" to "the cool kids are doing it" in the last decade or so, and 5e has been leading that charge. 1.6 million seems awfully low for such a cultural phenomenon.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thanks for what is an informative reply.
That criteria however would be met by shops whose only or primary product is role-playing games: primarily selling (game) books, primarily selling new books, primarily selling physical books, creating community through bookselling.
Yes. TRPGs are sold in toy and game shops. But they are also sold in shops that just sell role-playing games. Or shops that just sell comics and role-playing games. These sorts of shops would meet that criteria. They are also sold in regular bookstores. Which obviously do.
'spuriously selective accounting' is what I would call taking early sales figures and asserting these are any indication of how well something is subsequently selling or will sell in its lifecycle. I have already mentioned twice how 4th. ed. sold very well at the start but then sales declined.
How quickly something sells in the month following its release tells us very little. It is when something is released when it's going to enjoy a higher rate of sales. As I mentioned before: Here in Japan the 2014 PHB sold as few as 10,000 copies over ten years. If upon its release it outperformed an edition that had sold even better over time then who cares?
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
I agree with much of what you say here but Freaks and Geeks which aired between 1999 and 2000 showed even then in its depiction of what D&D looked like in the '80s yes the awkward kids who played the game but how it could very much appeal to the cool kids. One such cool kid's arc ends with him becoming a gamer.
I have been playing TRPGs since 1983 and played in groups during the '80s and the '90s with a mix of local kids: some who 'did well at school' shall we say and kids who played in local bands and so on.
'Cool kids' have always played D&D. The only reason we hear or read this refrain now is because the media have picked up on it or because Wizards are revising history to make them look as if their the saviors of the hobby.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Firstly, all information I could find on the ABA indicates that being a comic book retailer does not qualify as a bookseller. Comic books are classes as magazines, not books.
Secondly I have never in my life encountered a gaming store that sells just TTRPG books. I'm not saying they don't exist, but as someone who makes a point to seek out LGS's every time I visit a new city, I've never encountered this. They always sell ancillary products and it's pretty much established across the industry that these stores are held up by trading card sales and the like. These combined facts would be very indicative that the vast majority of gaming stores would even qualify, let alone apply for a paid membership to an organisation. My point that the main outlets for TTRPG books are likely not reporting to Bookscan still stands.
I did no such thing, I simply pointed out how questionable it is to base the success on D&D 5th edition vs 1st edition based on PHB sales and exclude the 2024 PHB. I then supported my claim by pointing to how all signs indicate the 2024 PHB being even more successful in sales than the 2014. I did however make a small error in my claim—the 2024 PHB sold more in just English in 1 month than the 2014 PHB sold in all languages in 2 years.
Oh, speaking of languages:
So what? I'm sure there are Japanese published TTRPGS that have sold insanely well locally that have next to zero international penetration. In the TTRPG sphere, localisation is a huge barrier marketwide. This proves nothing more than "localising rules is a barrier for all TTRPGs". Tormenta 20 is a household name in the gaming sphere in Brazil, but almost no one has heard of it outside of it's local market.
Once again, you're cherry picking and drawing nonsensical through lines.
This all seems very intellectually dishonest to me
The "cool kids playing D&D" is a trope because it subverts expectations. You even reference this yourself:
No one is revising history, D&D genuinely has more wide/general appeal and has thrown off a lot of the baggage around being a game for losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
A single 'comic' might qualify as a serial. A graphic novel is a monograph. And most comic book stores are full of the things. Of reprints of multiple issues of comic books.
I grew up in Australia which even in the '90s and early 2000s was home to a number of stores that just sold role-playing games—don't see why that wouldn't be the case now if they are 'more popular' than ever. While I never lived in either city I'd visit one of these in Canberra and one of these in Sydney whenever I would visit. Given the closest to a 'Friendly Local Game Store' in my hometown was a local bookshop. Melbourne was home to one. I would get their catalogues and order games from them. Now it sells other things. Maybe because role-playing games aren't as popular as they used to be. And it has to sell other things to survive. Who knows?
There are also a number of online stores that exclusively sell role-playing games. No. I am not mentioning them to suggest BookScan must record their numbers. Just pointing out how wrong you are to believe every store that sells a TRPG must sell Magic: The Gathering to stay alive.
If that's what you were doing then you were engaging in spurious accounting: because they are two different titles. We can pointlessly debate over whether 2024 and 2014 are the same game or not. They are not the same book. I could just as easily argue that every single reproduction of this or that edition must be counted towards its sales figures. Or that the differences between this or that older edition were even more marginal and so their sales figures ought to be combined.
The Mentzer red box sold exceptionally well in Japan. Ten times more in a single year (100,000) than the the 2014 PHB sold in ten years (10,000). Your point about 'penetration' is a cop-out excuse. D&D used to do well here. Used to. Call of Cthulhu now outperforms D&D in Japan. Not just domestic games.
No. You're rewriting history. It was no more a game for 'losers and loners and those who shirk social norms and transgress imposed boundaries' than it could be argued that it is today. Many might argue it has in fact become how it was often merely stereotyped. How many today play online because they otherwise have no one in their lives they would call 'friends'? How many today who play spend more time on social media or even here than they do around a table playing the game? And I could go on.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
You're failing to actually read what I'm saying. I said it had that baggage, not that was an accurate statement of the games nature. If you want to claim that wasn't the case, and people weren't disdainful of D&D and those who played it, then you're the one rewriting history.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
No. I wouldn't make that claim. But then neither would I claim it has none of it no more. It does. As I pointed out.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
I’ve also been playing since ‘83, so yeah!! Twinning!!
D&D is exponentially more popular now than it was then. That is not even arguable. It may have been infamous in the 80’s, but its notoriety came from people who didn’t know what they were talking about spouting off about the game. Not from people actually playing and enjoying it. The ignorant hate has largely gone away and now its fame stems from people actually playing and having a real, informed opinion.
Picking one tv show and suggesting that is an accurate representation of society is pretty absurd. It might show what the showrunner thinks, but that’s hardly universal. Ime, any cool kids who were playing back then were either trying to be edgy because of the satanic panic, or they hid the fact that they played because in the 80’s admitting you played D&D was a social death sentence.
But back to an earlier question: [citation needed]. There’s a lot of arguing about bookscan. Is that, indeed what you are using or are you just fabricating numbers entirely? It will be helpful to understand.
And to add a new question: Is there a point to this? I guess you prefer 1e.🤷♂️ If so, cool, go play it. It’s a fun game. But beyond that, so what? Why come here and hassle those of us who enjoy, or even prefer this version? Are you trying to convince those of us who like 5e that we shouldn’t? Or that we don’t actually like it? Or that other people don’t? What’s the end game here?
I think its factual to say that we don't really have any conclusive or even marginally reliable sources on the sales of any edition of the game, this has always been the case with D&D. Its not always for the same reasons, meaning TSR for example had very questionable bookkeeping and did self reporting which was a questionable practice as they offered no evidence just their word that the numbers were real. Modern WotC is really no better, they proclaimed D&D the highest grossing game in franchise history, yet offered zero evidence to support that claim. Point is, we have no idea how well either of these games actually sold.
It's worth pointing out however that sales does not translate to popularity nor does popularity equate to quality. If and when anyone does claim either of those two things, its always based a biased opinion of what they want to be true. It has no basis in fact.
Here is what we know about D&D through indisputable evidence. 1st edition AD&D was popular enough that people still play it today, it was popular enough for WotC to re-release the book and sell out every copy they printed and people still clone the rules, release the books and fund projects in the millions using these old rule sets. I don't know what quantifies as a game as "popular", but the overwhelming majority of new products released today don't sell out, while 1st edition AD&D sold out 40 years after its initial release and is still a hot seller today. If they reprinted 1st edition AD&D rulebooks today, it would sell out in a matter of days. That at least says something about its longevity.
In the same token 5e was popular enough that it turn what was once a niche, stigmatized hobby into a popular culture media icon. It was in my day considered embarrassing and a point of shame to admit you played D&D, today its a point of pride. 5th edition and its adoption in the last generation along with social media made that happen. I don't know that this makes it a good game, but it certainly has all the makings to be called "popular" by any definition.
Which one is more popular? What difference does that make? I mean what is the point of that debate or answer? Let's say you could quantify that 1st edition AD&D was more popular than 5e.... what do we do with that information? How does that impact anything? Are 5e players supposed to all of the sudden sell of their books and start play 1st edition? Is that the expectation?
I don't get the logic of the discussion. Are unicorns more popular than dinosaurs? Lets discuss!