# AD&D Settings Sales Comparison 79-98



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 15, 2022)

#GreyhawkCONFIRMED!


----------



## RuinousPowers (Jul 15, 2022)

For the most part, as I would have thought, other than I would have guessed Dark Sun was over Ravenloft. Guess "powercreep" and psionics limited it's appeal.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2022)

Will be very interesting to see a comparison with all settings.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 15, 2022)

It occurs to me that the fact that Spelljammer and presumably Dark Sun -- less settings, as far as sales are concerned -- are getting reboots suggests we are in fact in the late stages of an edition cycle.


----------



## Mezuka (Jul 15, 2022)

Technically, Ghost of Saltmarsh is Greyhawk.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> Technically, Ghost of Saltmarsh is Greyhawk.



You are technically correct. And as we all know, technically is the best kind of correct!


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Chris Currie said:


> Guess "powercreep" and psionics limited it's appeal.



Given the trends in core book sales I suspect it has more correlation with year of release than anything about the product specifically. Sales overall decrease pretty precipitously from the late 80s through to the bankruptcy.


----------



## Mezuka (Jul 15, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the fact that Spelljammer and presumably Dark Sun -- less settings, as far as sales are concerned -- are getting reboots suggests we are in fact in the late stages of an edition cycle.



We've known this for years. We all know 6e is coming in 2024. 

Spelljammer is simply the cap stone to unite all the other settings they have published so far.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> We've known this for years. We all know 6e is coming in 2024



Welp, this thread is done now.

Can I beg people not to turn this thread into an argument over whether the 2024 release is or is not going to be 6e? Pretty please? We already have other threads with this argument in them


----------



## Reynard (Jul 15, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> Spelljammer is simply the cap stone to unite all the other settings they have published so far.



If it was a capstone it would have come out AFTER DL and Dark Sun.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It occurs to me that the fact that Spelljammer and presumably Dark Sun -- less settings, as far as sales are concerned -- are getting reboots suggests we are in fact in the late stages of an edition cycle.



For Spelljammer specifically I suspect it's because multiverses are in the zeitgeist right now and Spelljammer was seen as easier to warp into something for the current audience than Planescape. It's also much easier to remake something you view as cool potentially but flawed in execution than something that actually worked the first time.

But for all of their setting pushes I suspect it's their position as a potential "new" brand that is getting them new looks - like a lot of nostalgia marketing.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 15, 2022)

Okay, I suppose I can wrap my head around why _Spelljammer_ and _Dark Sun_ had such small sales: even though *I* think they're awesome, they don't fit the standard Dark Ages/Middle Ages European fantasy trope, so maybe casual players weren't so taken with them back in the day. Fine. But dude, _Ravenloft???_ Really?? One of the best settings for one of the best adventure modules ever published, yet its sales are half those of _Dragonlance_?

I'm thinking there must be a variable or two that I'm overlooking here...

*EDIT:* Okay, here's one variable I overlooked: time. Sales of all settings seem to have tanked in the mid or late 80s and into the 90s, so some of these might be just victims of a down market.

Thread on sales trends through the years


----------



## darjr (Jul 15, 2022)

I suppose it’s possible that things like the desires of creators have had a hand in what 5e does. After all they decide what to do next via a high level pitch of sorts. Also with a longer term plan too. So someone, one of the producer/creators, wanted to do Spelljammer and Dragonlance. True, financials and sales viability have to come into it and probably did, but I think it’s obvious they thought it was worth it despite sales of TSR


----------



## Reynard (Jul 15, 2022)

Jer said:


> For Spelljammer specifically I suspect it's because multiverses are in the zeitgeist right now and Spelljammer was seen as easier to warp into something for the current audience than Planescape.



I thing broadly speaking Planescape would be an easier sell for that, except Planescape had a very specific setting that was, frankly, weird associated with it. That is of course why lots of people love it, but also why it probably isn't as good a choice for mass market appeal. "Pirates on Space Sailboats" is a pretty easy to grasp foundation, even if it isn't a complete picture.


----------



## mykesfree (Jul 15, 2022)

Since this is lifetime sales, can the OP or someone with History of the products overlay when each setting was released, as well as how many products were released for each setting?


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I thing broadly speaking Planescape would be an easier sell for that, except Planescape had a very specific setting that was, frankly, weird associated with it. That is of course why lots of people love it, but also why it probably isn't as good a choice for mass market appeal. "Pirates on Space Sailboats" is a pretty easy to grasp foundation, even if it isn't a complete picture.



Right. Also Planescape was a critical success in its day and spawned a video game that is also critically acclaimed while Spelljammer, despite how much I personally love the concept, was a critical flop[*]. I can see it being much easier for a design team to look at those two options and see which one they'd want to be compared to and which one they wouldn't with their new take.  Plus the visual design elements of fantasy ships flying through space is hard to argue with (and arguably Spelljammer complements the Magic side of the business more than Planescape does too, bringing in something new where Planescape and MtG's concepts of Planeswalkers have a lot of overlap).

[*] Spelljammer also had a video game back in the day.  But it never had the critical success that Torment did and a lot of folks don't even seem to recall that it existed.  SSI never made a sequel to it, and they seemed to be ready to make a sequel of any game that was even a moderate success where they could reuse the engine back in the day.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 15, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Okay, I suppose I can wrap my head around why _Spelljammer_ and _Dark Sun_ had such small sales: even though *I* think they're awesome, they don't fit the standard Dark Ages/Middle Ages European fantasy trope, so maybe casual players weren't so taken with them back in the day. Fine. But dude, _Ravenloft???_ Really?? One of the best settings for one of the best adventure modules ever published, yet its sales are half those of _Dragonlance_?
> 
> I'm thinking there must be a variable or two that I'm overlooking here...
> 
> ...



The variable is thst this is strictly comparing Core Setting products, so things like, say, Castle Ravenloft or the DL modules aren't included.


----------



## nyteshade_xt (Jul 15, 2022)

mykesfree said:


> Since this is lifetime sales, can the OP or someone with History of the products overlay when each setting was released, as well as how many products were released for each setting?



Yes, this please!  Spelljammer, Dark Sun and Ravenloft were all release much later in the presented timeframe than the other settings.  The data as presented is misleading and should have been normalized in some way.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 15, 2022)

Jer said:


> Given the trends in core book sales I suspect it has more correlation with year of release than anything about the product specifically. Sales overall decrease pretty precipitously from the late 80s through to the bankruptcy.



Which came first: the chicken, or the egg...?


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 15, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The variable is thst this is strictly comparing Core Setting products, so things like, say, Castle Ravenloft or the DL modules aren't included.



Okay, _that_ makes a lot more sense now. The modules were pretty popular back in the 80s, but hardly anyone I knew was buying pure setting books.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 15, 2022)

I wonder what the (# setting books sold in year x) / (#rule books sold in year x and x-1) are.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 15, 2022)

Cadence said:


> I wonder what the (# setting books sold in year x) / (#rule books sold in year x and x-1) are.



I would guess anything besides the first module or two, adventures in the setting sold an order of magnitude fewer.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 15, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Okay, _that_ makes a lot more sense now. The modules were pretty popular back in the 80s, but hardly anyone I knew was buying pure setting books.



Well, in this case, box sets, but yeah. Different animals. The audience for Setting box sets seemed to gravitate more towards Ye Oldde Tolkienian fantasy worlds...which WotC focused on when they revived the brand.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

nyteshade_xt said:


> Yes, this please!  Spelljammer, Dark Sun and Ravenloft were all release much later in the presented timeframe than the other settings.  The data as presented is misleading and should have been normalized in some way.



It's not misleading - it's doing what it says its doing.

However if you want to see the other graphs they're scattered in the other threads.  Morrus said he's going to wait until they're all done to compile them, but if you go look you can pretty clearly see that the low sales on these are coupled with lower "spikes" in initial sales during the first year of the setting materials as well.  And that the low initial spikes in setting materials look like they are highly correlated with dropping sales in the core books over time.  It basically looks very much like D&D was just losing steam as a game through the 90s and TSR didn't know how to do anything about it other than flail and release more product.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 15, 2022)

Cadence said:


> I wonder what the (# setting books sold in year x) / (#rule books sold in year x and x-1) are.



@BenRiggs  did put out the core rulebook numbers. The overal trend from 1980-1996 looks pretty similar...and it ugly.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Which came first: the chicken, or the egg...?



If you aren't getting new players into the game and you're losing older players, your new settings aren't going to have an audience no matter how good they are.

The graphs on the core book sales strongly suggest that the number of new players coming into the game was diminishing pretty badly from the late 80s on.  We don't have any real way from these numbers to see how quickly older players were leaving the game, but the numbers do at least support a hypothesis that the game was shedding actively purchasing players faster than it was gaining new ones.


----------



## darjr (Jul 15, 2022)

However combining the sales was part of TSRs justification for them, I think it’s been stated. 
Ultimately though developing an extensive new setting and dividing the fans played a part in TSRs problems.


----------



## Mezuka (Jul 15, 2022)

Reynard said:


> If it was a capstone it would have come out AFTER DL and Dark Sun.



Depends what they do with these settings. They might be somewhere hard to reach outside Spelljammer navigation.


----------



## grimslade (Jul 15, 2022)

I like Ravenloft. Played a campaign or two, but there was no shortage of horror RPGs in the 90s. Gothic D&D horror is a pretty specific niche. I understand why the sales reflect that. The majority of the 90's was a recovery period economically too. Planescape Torment succeeded because it built off of the success of Baldurs Gate I and II. I wouldn't say that the Planescape setting was the selling point rather than a Bioware CRPG. Fantastic game. Loved it. I never played or purchased any Planescape tabletop product. Anecdata, I know. 
I think the appeal and cries for republishing these old niche settings are because they have such an original and definitive style. One of the biggest complaints of FR is that it is a kitchen sink setting. Everything is there. But I think the real problem people have with FR is that it feels like a setting by committee. People loved the grey box FR setting because it still was predominantly Ed Greenwood's setting and not hundreds of authors' works. These smaller settings have a stamp of vision, ironically, even though both Spelljammer and Planescape were created to be the ultimate kitchen sink settings tying everything D&D together. They are their own definitive things and people want to experience it.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jul 15, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Okay, I suppose I can wrap my head around why _Spelljammer_ and _Dark Sun_ had such small sales: even though *I* think they're awesome, they don't fit the standard Dark Ages/Middle Ages European fantasy trope, so maybe casual players weren't so taken with them back in the day. Fine. But dude, _Ravenloft???_ Really?? One of the best settings for one of the best adventure modules ever published, yet its sales are half those of _Dragonlance_?
> 
> I'm thinking there must be a variable or two that I'm overlooking here...
> 
> ...



None of these figures correlate with the quality of the product. As I said, the later Ravenloft 2nd edition box set and campaign book were better than the original box but sold WORSE. For all the hate directed at Dragonlance SAGA it didn't sell any worse than 2nd edition products!


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jul 15, 2022)

I mean I loved 2nd edition Ravenloft. And Planescape was ultimate high-concept D&D but I have to accept the fact that none of them were  big sellers. And it has no relationship to quality!


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jul 15, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I thing broadly speaking Planescape would be an easier sell for that, except Planescape had a very specific setting that was, frankly, weird associated with it. That is of course why lots of people love it, but also why it probably isn't as good a choice for mass market appeal. "Pirates on Space Sailboats" is a pretty easy to grasp foundation, even if it isn't a complete picture.



My memory from the 90s was that Planescape was as hated as it was loved. Many people resented it for burying planar stuff in a weird cant and strange art.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> I mean I loved 2nd edition Ravenloft. And Planescape was ultimate high-concept D&D but I have to accept the fact that none of them were  big sellers. And it has no relationship to quality!



Anyone looking at these graphs and thinking there's any correlation to quality - or even how much potential a setting concept had - is fooling themselves.

The downward slope of the graphs are all correlated with the downward slope of the core rulebook sales in general. I bet once all of the numbers are posted if someone assembles a massive graph of all of the setting info we'll see the same thing - very high spikes in initial sales with a decent tail on products released from 1980-1986 and then lower and lower initial sales with shallower and shallower tails very quickly in the years after that up to the bankruptcy.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 15, 2022)

nyteshade_xt said:


> Yes, this please!  Spelljammer, Dark Sun and Ravenloft were all release much later in the presented timeframe than the other settings.  The data as presented is misleading and should have been normalized in some way.



Yes, I was going to say much the same thing! Considering most of these settings didn’t exist for the majority of this timeframe there’s really very little useful information you can pull out of this graph on its own. (Maybe in combination with the other graphs, but that still would need to involve a lot of speculation and making assumptions.)

What would be useful is a line chart with values for every year and a line for each setting. Without that, knowing that the settings that were supported for a longer period of time had more sales isn’t all that insightful.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 15, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> My memory from the 90s was that Planescape was as hated as it was loved. Many people resented it for burying planar stuff in a weird cant and strange art.



I’ll second this. Purely anecdotal memory, but it sure seemed like Planescape was even more polarizing than Spelljammer’s more silly aspects. At the time, middle ground opinions on it were pretty much unheard of.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 15, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> My memory from the 90s was that Planescape was as hated as it was loved. Many people resented it for burying planar stuff in a weird cant and strange art.



The art I love; the lingo I am happy to overlook.

It is a high-concept setting for sure, and I am in no way surprised to learn that only some people enjoyed it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 15, 2022)

kenmarable said:


> I’ll second this. Purely anecdotal memory, but it sure seemed like Planescape was even more polarizing than Spelljammer’s more silly aspects. At the time, middle ground opinions on it were pretty much unheard of.




Thankfully, the period of time currently known as "now" is known for its unified discourse and middle-ground opinions shared by everyone!


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 15, 2022)

Reynard said:


> "Pirates on Space Sailboats" is a pretty easy to grasp foundation, even if it isn't a complete picture.



Which is funny, because the Spelljammer accessories and adventures assumed you were Explorers*, not pirates!  Pirates were the bad guys! (And scro...)

* or, more actually, gophers for the Elvin Armada.


----------



## Mark Craddock (Jul 15, 2022)

The problem I have with this chart is some of those settings were in the market far longer than some of the others. I don't see how you can cmpare Forgotten Realms to Ravenloft or Dark Sun when it has almost a decade of extra sales.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Mark Craddock said:


> The problem I have with this chart is some of those settings were in the market far longer than some of the others. I don't see how you can cmpare Forgotten Realms to Ravenloft or Dark Sun when it has almost a decade of extra sales.



Go back to the other posts and look at the sales over time charts for that info.  It doesn't really make the comparisons any better though - most of the sales on these settings happen in their first year of sale and then they flatline, so even if you cut out the sales after a certain number of years the broad comparison will remain.  

Arguably the one setting really getting dinged in the bar chart is Greyhawk, because nobody has the numbers for the original Greyhawk Folio and given when it was published it's possible that it did very well in sales because everything D&D was doing well in sales in those years.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 15, 2022)

Jer said:


> If you aren't getting new players into the game and you're losing older players, your new settings aren't going to have an audience no matter how good they are.
> 
> The graphs on the core book sales strongly suggest that the number of new players coming into the game was diminishing pretty badly from the late 80s on.  We don't have any real way from these numbers to see how quickly older players were leaving the game, but the numbers do at least support a hypothesis that the game was shedding actively purchasing players faster than it was gaining new ones.



Yes, the correspondence is there: but which caused which, the declining sales or the product release strategy?

WotC bet that it was the product management, and that seems to have been a good bet.


----------



## harbison32 (Jul 15, 2022)

Please remember you have to take into account the years all of these settings came out when comparing them to each other. Greyhawk was pretty much the original setting (1980), Dragonlance (1984, I believe), Forgotten Realms (1987), Spelljammer (1989), Ravenloft (1990, when it got the full treatment), Dark Sun (1991). The "big 3" on the chart all have had the longest run so of course they have sold the most, and they're kind of typical fantasy. The other 3 are kind of niche, but Ravenloft would be the more fantasy adjacent than Dark Sun and Spelljammer.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> WotC bet that it was the product management, and that seems to have been a good bet.



The confounding factor in all of this is just plain overall bad corporate management on TSR's side.  It's possible that any approach they took to shepherd the game would have failed because they just weren't as good at the business as Wizards was and were getting by on brand recognition and being the 800-lb gorilla in the room.

We haven't seen the same sales numbers from Wizards on their 3e rollout and products over time, but they seem to have struggled with the same problem that TSR did - high initial sales falling to a narrow tail over a shorter time than you'd want to see.  I'd really want to see if that initial sales spike for 3e was higher and the tail fatter for the core books after Wizards did the 3e roll out - they were consciously doing things to try to build the player base and bring people back into buying D&D products who had wandered off through the 90s, but also 3.5 and 4e both came in a fairly rapid succession, which suggests that their approach was still having issues.  And they at least seemed to actually recognize the problem and tried different strategies to combat it.  TSR just seems to have done the same things over and over again with diminishing results each time.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 15, 2022)

Aw, left Mystara out.

I realize that the chart is labeled “AD&D settings”, but the *setting* is main theme of this chart, not which *iteration* of xD&D the setting used.

The total of the B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cylopedia core box/book sales, plus the Hollow World boxed set, Champions of Mystara box, plus the AD&D 2e core boxes (Karameikos, Glantri, and Red Steel) ought to be included as a single “Mystara” bar on the graph.


----------



## dinsdale (Jul 15, 2022)

The other factor that is worth considering is sales/release. I admittedly haven't looked back the information on the actual number of releases (though when has a lack of knowledge prevented someone from opining on the internet), but if, for example, Forgotten Realms had three core releases in that timeframe but Dragonlance only one, then this could alter the potential interpretations of the data.


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Jul 15, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Which came first: the chicken, or the egg...?



Technically dinosaurs but who's counting? 

On a more relevant note. Does anyone know if the novels are going to be included anywhere in one of these charts? I had more forgotten realms game materials than Dragonlance but I had a whole lot of Dragonlance novels.
 A. Whole. Lot.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 15, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Aw, left Mystara out.
> 
> I realize that the chart is labeled “AD&D settings”, but the *setting* is main theme of this chart, not which *iteration* of xD&D the setting used.
> 
> The total of the B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cylopedia core box/book sales, plus the Hollow World boxed set, Champions of Mystara box, plus the AD&D 2e core boxes (Karameikos, Glantri, and Red Steel) ought to be included as a single “Mystara” bar on the graph.



Including the core boxes/books would be too apples to oranges, I think.  Those are primarily rules sets, even though Expert gave the basic intro to The Known World, which became Mystara. 

I could certainly see putting Champions of Mystara, Karameikos, Glantri, and Red Steel on a Mystara graph.  Hollow World I think is a bit of a stretch because it's really a distinct campaign setting on the same planet, isn't it?  Maztica was broken out separately from Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 15, 2022)

Mark Craddock said:


> The problem I have with this chart is some of those settings were in the market far longer than some of the others. I don't see how you can cmpare Forgotten Realms to Ravenloft or Dark Sun when it has almost a decade of extra sales.



Well, he's also put out the sales at time of release.  Just compare, say FR's first year release sales to Ravenloft's first year.


----------



## darjr (Jul 15, 2022)

Mystara numbers are coming. And the core books already have been.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Jul 15, 2022)

Jer said:


> Given the trends in core book sales I suspect it has more correlation with year of release than anything about the product specifically. Sales overall decrease pretty precipitously from the late 80s through to the bankruptcy.



This is a snapshot of 7 years, not one particular year.


Jer said:


> Given the trends in core book sales I suspect it has more correlation with year of release than anything about the product specifically. Sales overall decrease pretty precipitously from the late 80s through to the bankruptcy.



What happened from 1995-1999 that hurt its sales so much when 1995 marked 5 consecutive years of economic growth?


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 16, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Including the core boxes/books would be too apples to oranges, I think.  Those are primarily rules sets, even though Expert gave the basic intro to The Known World, which became Mystara.
> 
> I could certainly see putting Champions of Mystara, Karameikos, Glantri, and Red Steel on a Mystara graph.  Hollow World I think is a bit of a stretch because it's really a distinct campaign setting on the same planet, isn't it?  Maztica was broken out separately from Forgotten Realms.



All of the rules sets included Mystara setting material. The Rules Cyclopedia had a whole chapter about Mystara.

Point taken about the Maztica / HW parallel.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 16, 2022)

darjr said:


> Mystara numbers are coming. And the core books already have been.



Yeah, but to measure “setting awareness” / “number of sales impressions made by each D&D setting”, BD&D Mystara should be combined with AD&D Mystara. In the same way that the chart combines 1e FR and 2e FR.

The constrained conditions under which 2e Mystara was released is going to misportray and skew the setting as a “poor seller”, even though the setting had more sales than Forgotten Realms. Jeff Grubb quit TSR because of the dumb way that Mystara was presented in 2e (resulting in terrible sales) — he writes about that in his blog.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 16, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> My memory from the 90s was that Planescape was as hated as it was loved. Many people resented it for burying planar stuff in a weird cant and strange art.



I didn't purchase any Planescape material until a few years back when I wanted to use it for a 5E game I was running.  Man, I feel like I missed something special in the 90s.  The setting is great and I think the art is simply fantastic.  But I had absolutely zero interest in the setting at time of release.


South by Southwest said:


> Fine. But dude, _Ravenloft???_ Really?? One of the best settings for one of the best adventure modules ever published, yet its sales are half those of _Dragonlance_?



While I don't have anything bad to say about Dragonlance, I don't remember playing a lot of games using that setting, but I absolutely loved Ravenloft.  I'm not at all surprised that Dragonlance outsold Ravenloft given how popular the former was.  Ravenloft was pretty big, the novels were selling very well, but Dragonlance was even bigger.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 16, 2022)

Chris Currie said:


> What happened from 1995-1999 that hurt its sales so much when 1995 marked 5 consecutive years of economic growth?



I can't answer for anyone else, but these were the years I abandoned AD&D and even sold off my many books.  I had grown frustrated with the rules, electing to move on to other games like _Legend of the Five Rings _and_ Deadlands.  _I don't think I was the only one who was simply burned out on AD&D.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 16, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I know there have been a lot of these threads, and I'm holding off on any kind of overarching summary/compilation article until they're all in, but this one in particular jumped out at me. Again, this is from Ben Riggs, author of *Slaying the Dragon*, a history of TSR-era D&D, going out next month.



These threads are great, keep 'em coming.  Getting concrete numbers we can use to interpret the past is a lot of fun.  I've certainly been surprised by what I've learned in these threads.  What's most surprising is the steep, steep drop in sales from the year a setting is introduced to the next year.  I would expect a drop, but I didn't expect it to be so steep and for sales to remain anemic for years afterward.


----------



## Sergio Nemirovsky (Jul 16, 2022)

Jer said:


> Given the trends in core book sales I suspect it has more correlation with year of release than anything about the product specifically. Sales overall decrease pretty precipitously from the late 80s through to the bankruptcy.



My thinking exactly. And it should also be controlled by amount of items in the category. There were many reboots of the different settings and FR had lots of different regions and other supplements. Dragonlance not as many as GH or FR, nor RL.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 16, 2022)

Sergio Nemirovsky said:


> My thinking exactly. And it should also be controlled by amount of items in the category. There were many reboots of the different settings and FR had lots of different regions and other supplements. Dragonlance not as many as GH or FR, nor RL.



Those numbers don't reflect supplemental materials.


----------



## Sergio Nemirovsky (Jul 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Those numbers don't reflect supplemental materials.



Ah. Ok. But my question still applies to core products. From the ashes is not included? FR 1e or 2e? RL had 2 core boxes over the decade and one setting book. And it's still not controlled by time. Just saying maybe DS would fare better taking the confusor variables into account. I would love to have a look at the data.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 17, 2022)

Sergio Nemirovsky said:


> Ah. Ok. But my question still applies to core products. From the ashes is not included? FR 1e or 2e? RL had 2 core boxes over the decade and one setting book. And it's still not controlled by time. Just saying maybe DS would fare better taking the confusor variables into account. I would love to have a look at the data.



There are specific charts for each setting that breaks them down in other threads.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 17, 2022)

Sergio Nemirovsky said:


> Ah. Ok. But my question still applies to core products. From the ashes is not included? FR 1e or 2e? RL had 2 core boxes over the decade and one setting book. And it's still not controlled by time. Just saying maybe DS would fare better taking the confusor variables into account. I would love to have a look at the data.



Which books are counted has been included in each posting. Greyhawk includes From the Ashes (which bombed), Greyhawk Adventures, and and original box set (but not the Folio). Forgotten Realms includes the Grey Box, FR Adventures, and the revised 2E box set.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Jul 17, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> *EDIT:* Okay, here's one variable I overlooked: time. Sales of all settings seem to have tanked in the mid or late 80s and into the 90s, so some of these might be just victims of a down market.
> 
> Thread on sales trends through the years



This was my first thought, while a rising tide lifts all boats, as the tide goes out, so do sales... (or something)


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> All of the rules sets included Mystara setting material. The Rules Cyclopedia had a whole chapter about Mystara.



The Basic sets had zero setting info, right? I also don't remember much of anything in my copies of Companion, Master, or Immortals, and even Expert is just really the setting map.

If the RC has a whole chapter, I think you've got a much better case there.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> The Basic sets had zero setting info, right? I also don't remember much of anything in my copies of Companion, Master, or Immortals, and even Expert is just really the setting map.
> 
> If the RC has a whole chapter, I think you've got a much better case there.



I just flipped through my Expert rulebook. it has a couple pages on threshold, plus a larger map. If I recall, The Isle of Dread that came with also had a couple pages. But there is significantly more information in the RC.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

I dint think you can include Basic set sales as Mystara sales. Some of those were before Mystara existed as a thing.

And if that were the case then the 1e core books would count as Greyhawk and Blackmoor, so would the grey, white and Holmes editions.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 18, 2022)

darjr said:


> I dint think you can include Basic set sales as Mystara sales. Some of those were before Mystara existed as a thing.
> 
> And if that were the case then the 1e core books would count as Greyhawk and Blackmoor, so would the grey, white and Holmes editions.



Only Holmes Basic was before Mystara/Known World.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Only Holmes Basic was before Mystara/Known World.



That doesn't change the fact that neither Basic nor Expert book was a campaign setting.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 18, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> The Basic sets had zero setting info, right? I also don't remember much of anything in my copies of Companion, Master, or Immortals, and even Expert is just really the setting map.
> 
> If the RC has a whole chapter, I think you've got a much better case there.



Moldvay Basic had the Haunted Keep, which was placed in Karameikos. Mentzer Basic had the Caves west of town and Castle Mistamere, both of which were located in Karameikos. And the later print runs of Modules B1 and B2 were set in Karameikos.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That doesn't change the fact that neither Basic nor Expert book was a campaign setting.



The Expert boxed sets did include a  campaign setting: Threshold, Karameikos, and the D&D Continent (aka the Known World). Just not as many pages of setting as the WOG or FR set. 

And the Basic sets featured locales from that campaign setting.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> The Expert boxed sets did include a  campaign setting: Threshold, Karameikos, and the D&D Continent (aka the Known World). Just not as many pages of setting as the WOG or FR set.
> 
> And the Basic sets featured locales from that campaign setting.



I get that you like the setting but it seems weird to want to literally change the definition of "campaign setting" as a product type just to give your favorite a boost.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

The words Mystara or even the name Known World are not even in the Moldvey Basic set. Yes, it was Moldveys personal setting and he used an element of it in Basic. If that makes it a Mystara sale then all of the D&D core books are Greyhawk sales.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 18, 2022)

As others have been mentioned, I think it's very important to view these sales figures in context.  When were they released?  What was happening to the market at that time?

For example, Ravenloft seems to be surprising folks about its lower sales.  Look at how D&D sales were during that time period, and look at what else was going on.  The Goth and vampire pop culture fad was in full swing in the 90s, so you'd think that would help, however, there was this game called Vampire the Masquerade at the time.  Might have heard of it    I know this is anecdotal, but nearly everyone I knew and saw (which was a lot because this was during my military enlistment so there was a huge churn in gaming groups as we all shifted duty assignments) who wanted the gothic vampire vibe played Vampire and not D&D Ravenloft.  We played D&D when we wanted typical high fantasy.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

Chris Currie said:


> This is a snapshot of 7 years, not one particular year.
> 
> What happened from 1995-1999 that hurt its sales so much when 1995 marked 5 consecutive years of economic growth?



Vampire the Masquerade and its little brothers.

Edit: Dang, got there after @Sacrosanct


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Vampire the Masquerade and its little brothers.
> 
> Edit: Dang, got there after @Sacrosanct



More probably Magic: the Gathering. it did huge amounts of damage to the TTRPG industry.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I get that you like the setting but it seems weird to want to literally change the definition of "campaign setting" as a product type just to give your favorite a boost.



Yet the Mentzer Expert Set refers to it as a “setting” called the “D&D Campaign” and the “campaign game.” Besides that chapter, the intro paragraphs are also focused on the setting—indicating that it’s the main theme of that boxed set.

It is a Campaign Setting; just formatted differently than the archetypal 1990s-style TSR “campaign setting” boxed set.

In any case, my point is that the way that Ben has picked and displayed products, is going to give short shrift to Mystara for several reasons:
1) Mystara’s initial campaign setting—the Cook and Mentzer Expert Sets, weren’t counted.
2) Later, Mystara was mostly displayed in the GAZ series, which Ben didn’t count.
3) The Hollow World boxed set, Champions of Mystara (Voyage of the Princess Ark campaign box), and Red Steel boxed set weren’t counted at all.
4) the AD&D Mystara boxed set, was, at the last minute, split into a whole series of boxed sets: Karameikos, Glantri, etc. which is why Jeff Grubb quit TSR.

Glad to hear (over on fb) that Ben is going to show the Karameikos boxed set sales. But again, this will be a measly under-representation of how many “consumer impressions” were made by the Mystara setting.

I’d ask Ben to really bundle all of the world-specific products, including adventures, campaign expansions, etc. —then we’d see a truer picture of how many consumer impressions each setting made.

His comparisons so far are just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> More probably Magic: the Gathering. it did huge amounts of damage to the TTRPG industry.



Not really. Many were playing both (myself included). But during the VtM era, I played a lot of it. I went down to a single group of D&D (my oldest group, still in action even today) and we were playing VtM even then too! 3 games of VtM was I in. Two as a Storyteller and one as a player. D&D was down the drain at this time and still playing D&D was seen as a "weird" thing to do. Hey, remember Buffy? Interview with a Vampire? Heck... Twilight... Everyone were after "cool" vampires.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Not really. Many were playing both (myself included). But during the VtM era, I played a lot of it. I went down to a single group of D&D (my oldest group, still in action even today) and we were playing VtM even then too! 3 games of VtM was I in. Two as a Storyteller and one as a player. D&D was down the drain at this time and still playing D&D was seen as a "weird" thing to do. Hey, remember Buffy? Interview with a Vampire? Heck... Twilight... Everyone were after "cool" vampires.



I wasn't expressing an opinion. there is huge amounts of data that shows that the CCG boom killed large numbers of TTRPGs as stores stopped ordering TTRPGs in order to sell CCGS, and the bust killed large numbers of stores. CCGs did far more damage than Vampire did.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Yet the Mentzer Expert Set refers to it as a “setting” called the “D&D Campaign” and the “campaign game.” Besides that chapter, the intro paragraphs are also focused on the setting—indicating that it’s the main theme of that boxed set.
> 
> It is a Campaign Setting; just formatted differently than the archetypal 1990s-style TSR “campaign setting” boxed set.



Words have no meaning on the internet.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Yet the Mentzer Expert Set refers to it as a “setting” called the “D&D Campaign” and the “campaign game.” Besides that chapter, the intro paragraphs are also focused on the setting—indicating that it’s the main theme of that boxed set.
> 
> It is a Campaign Setting; just formatted differently than the archetypal 1990s-style TSR “campaign setting” boxed set.



Disagree.  I think this is a categorical error.  The Mentzer Expert set is a rules set with a couple of pages of example setting info.  This is vastly different from a book or boxed set whose primary focus is detailing a specific setting. Which is what all of Ben's charts have been talking about, and the conversation we're having. 



Dungeonosophy said:


> In any case, my point is that the way that Ben has picked and displayed products, is going to give short shrift to Mystara for several reasons:
> 1) Mystara’s initial campaign setting—the Cook and Mentzer Expert Sets, weren’t counted.
> 2) Later, Mystara was mostly displayed in GAZ series, which Ben didn’t count.
> 3) The Hollow World boxed set, Champions of Mystara (Voyage of the Princess Ark campaign box), and Red Steel boxed set weren’t counted at all.
> 4) the AD&D Mystara boxed set, was, at the last minute, split into a whole series of boxed sets: Karameikos, Glantri, etc. which is why Jeff Grubb quit TSR.



I agree that 2-4 should all be included to get a Mystara total.  I do not think it's reasonable to include any of the B/X or BECMI core sets toward that.  The tiny amounts of setting info in there do not make those rules sets into setting books.  I'm sympathetic to the idea of including the RC, though, since it's got a whole chapter on Mystara.



Dungeonosophy said:


> Glad to hear (over on fb) that Ben is going to show the Karameikos boxed set sales, but again, this will be a measly under-representation of how many “consumer impressions” were made by the Mystara setting.
> 
> I’d ask Ben to really bundle all of the world-specific products, including adventures, campaign expansions, etc. —then we’d see a truer picture of how many consumer impressions each setting made.
> 
> His comparisons so far are just the tip of the iceberg.



I'd love to see more detailed and complete numbers too.  Obviously if we want a full picture of, say, Dragonlance, we'd need sales numbers for the modules, as those were the core original way the setting was presented for the game, prior to the later hardcover Dragonlance Adventures book.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 18, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Ravenloft seems to be surprising folks about its lower sales.



But the chart doesn’t show sales of the original Ravenloft module. Which was a huge seller, AFAIK.

A comparison of just the key boxed sets does tell us something, but it doesn’t really encompass the totality of consumer impressions for each setting.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> But the chart doesn’t show sales of the original Ravenloft module. Which was a huge seller, AFAIK.
> 
> A comparison of just the key boxed sets does tell us something, but it doesn’t really encompass the totality of consumer impressions for each setting.



Yeah, I think it's a tricky distinction.

Obviously Ravenloft, like Dragonlance, is a setting originally presented to consumers in module form.  A smaller, more digestible package, and, at least in Ravenloft's case, one specifically designed to be compatible with your existing game.  Playable as an isolated episode/adventure in the buyer's homebrew campaign, or game set in Greyhawk, the Realms, or wherever.

Folks buying a whole campaign setting book or boxed set are making more of an investment.  Not just of cash, but of planned time and work to read and internalize the setting details, then to build their campaign in that setting and work to use the provided details, and make their own creative design and writing compatible with it. 

Are we trying to measure "How many people found this setting cool enough to run an adventure set there"?  Or "How many people found this setting appealing enough to want to run a whole campaign there, possibly committing years of real time to it"?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> But the chart doesn’t show sales of the original Ravenloft module. Which was a huge seller, AFAIK.
> 
> A comparison of just the key boxed sets does tell us something, but it doesn’t really encompass the totality of consumer impressions for each setting.



I think it's important to note I6 Ravenloft came out in 1983.  The boxed set didn't come out until 1990.  So it makes sense the module had high sales #s but the setting did not, considering those above factors.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> But the chart doesn’t show sales of the original Ravenloft module. Which was a huge seller, AFAIK.
> 
> A comparison of just the key boxed sets does tell us something, but it doesn’t really encompass the totality of consumer impressions for each setting.



I don't think it is an achievable goal for any setting. Not only does each have tons of supplements, but how do you count Dungeon and Dragon articles focused on the settings?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't think it is an achievable goal for any setting. Not only does each have tons of supplements, but how do you count Dungeon and Dragon articles focused on the settings?




Agreed. The idea of "consumer impressions" is a bizarre one _in this context. _It also (IMO) would not correlate well with sales back then.

We've had previous discussions as to why sales of Basic (for example) did not correlate highly to playing Basic, especially given the difference in play that we can see at Conventions and in coverage in periodicals at the time. 

I know that I had multiple copies of Basic (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer) as well as Expert (Cook, Mentzer) and the B and X modules, yet never really though of "The Known World" or "Mystara" as settings until much later (and never ran a campaign in them). While my anecdote is not dispositive, I don't think it's that unusual for the 80s.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I wasn't expressing an opinion. there is huge amounts of data that shows that the CCG boom killed large numbers of TTRPGs as stores stopped ordering TTRPGs in order to sell CCGS, and the bust killed large numbers of stores. CCGs did far more damage than Vampire did.



Vampire's sales were not really impacted by the CCG boom. In fact, it almost entirely replaced the TTRPG market back then. Not only D&D sales were down, but other TTRPG as well. Heck, Role Master, Palladium books, Warhammer and many other almost disapear and other promising TTRPG simply vanished! That people bought more CCG than TTRPG was not a surprise. A market shift is always to be expected. But TSR's sales would have survived if Vampire had not come around. Yes the pond was smaller, but D&D's quasi monopoly was literally gutted by Vampire.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Agreed. The idea of "consumer impressions" is a bizarre one _in this context. _It also (IMO) would not correlate well with sales back then.
> 
> We've had previous discussions as to why sales of Basic (for example) did not correlate highly to playing Basic, especially given the difference in play that we can see at Conventions and in coverage in periodicals at the time.
> 
> I know that I had multiple copies of Basic (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer) as well as Expert (Cook, Mentzer) and the B and X modules, yet never really though of "The Known World" or "Mystara" as settings until much later (and never ran a campaign in them). While my anecdote is not dispositive, I don't think it's that unusual for the 80s.



I have the same impression. Modules would be used with either game. No one thought of B2 as basic exclusively (or any other module for that matter). It is only around the Companion and Master box set that adventures started to appear to be only for one system or the other (and even then, many would simply adapt the adventure to AD&D). 
The reverse, however, was not always true. Most AD&D module would not be used with "Basic" in mind.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Vampire's sales were not really impacted by the CCG boom. In fact, it almost entirely replaced the TTRPG market back then. Not only D&D sales were down, but other TTRPG as well. Heck, Role Master, Palladium books, Warhammer and many other almost disapear and other promising TTRPG simply vanished! That people bought more CCG than TTRPG was not a surprise. A market shift is always to be expected. But TSR's sales would have survived if Vampire had not come around. Yes the pond was smaller, but D&D's quasi monopoly was literally gutted by Vampire.



Helldritch, is this your impression specific to your country?  In the US Vampire and other "more adult" games definitely ate TSR's lunch to some extent, as D&D got derided as old fashioned compared to the Storyteller system, Shadowrun, and even more universal systems like GURPS. But CCGs were a tidal wave totally reshaping the hobby gaming market.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

In the US vampire sales beat D&D sales, but from what I understand, not by a lot.

So if TSR sales were depressed I don’t think those Vampire sales were basic level or maybe not even core book AD&D 1e levels.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

darjr said:


> In the US vampire sales beat D&D sales, but from what I understand, not by a lot.



For a single quarter, if I recall.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Helldritch, is this your impression specific to your country?  In the US Vampire and other "more adult" games definitely ate TSR's lunch to some extent, as D&D got derided as old fashioned compared to the Storyteller system, Shadowrun, and even more universal systems like GURPS, but CCGs were a tidal wave totally reshaping the hobby gaming market.



Probably due to my province (Quebec, Canada). Here, GURPS, Shadowrun became non existent. All that was left was Vampire and D&D and to some lesser extent, Warhammer, Palladium and a wee bit of other. Yes, the CCG took a large part. But CCG is not TTRPG. These are two distinct market. I know  a lot of CCG players that never touched a RPG in their entire life. The reverse is quite rarer. Even I played MTG any my collection is quite fine. The two systems are not targeting the same audience but a person can have many interests. Those who were not in the Vampire fad went somewhere else. That is CCG. But the goal here is to compare TTRPG with TTRPG not with an other market.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Probably due to my province (Quebec, Canada). Here, GURPS, Shadowrun became non existent. All that was left was Vampire and D&D and to some lesser extent, Warhammer, Palladium and a wee bit of other. Yes, the CCG took a large part. But CCG is not TTRPG. These are two distinct market. I know  a lot of CCG players that never touched a RPG in their entire life. The reverse is quite rarer. Even I played MTG any my collection is quite fine. The two systems are not targeting the same audience but a person can have many interests. Those who were not in the Vampire fad went somewhere else. That is CCG. But the goal here is to compare TTRPG with TTRPG not with an other market.



I think you misunderstand. It isn't that CCGs stole the players, it is that CCGs stole the money normally used to purchase TTRPGs because they were substantially more profitable. RPG companies were suddenly unable to sell their stock, and many such companies used sales from one product to bankroll the printing of the next. Without those sales, the lines collapsed.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think you misunderstand. It isn't that CCGs stole the players, it is that CCGs stole the money normally used to purchase TTRPGs because they were substantially more profitable. RPG companies were suddenly unable to sell their stock, and many such companies used sales from one product to bankroll the printing of the next. Without those sales, the lines collapsed.



That I understand. But this is a consumer shift. Those lost consumers are no longer in the hobby of TTRPG.
What we must compare is what those that stayed in the TTRPG industry decided to consume. TSR or Vampire? My money is on Vampire.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 18, 2022)

darjr said:


> If that makes it a Mystara sale then all of the D&D core books are Greyhawk sales.



Well, I admit that the B/X and BECMI boxed sets are hybrid products: mostly rules, but also featuring the KW campaign setting (esp. the Expert boxes, but also setting info in all of them, such as Masters Set world map). So it’s a borderline call. I agree they are not exactly the same product category as the typical 1990s TSR campaign setting boxed sets. But on the other hand, they contained more setting info (e.g. world map) than, say, the GH bits in the OD&D, 1e, and 3e rulebooks. And for 6 years (from 1981 to 1987 when GAZ1 came out) those boxed sets were the only source for the KW campaign setting, other than adventure modules.

My point is that lining up a few key boxed sets and core books and calling that a “campaign setting” is a bit confusing, and “unfair “ to certain settings (eg missing GH Folio data, original RL module, DL War of the Lance modules, and Mystara’s various GAZes and split up boxed sets).

Because “campaign setting” has two meanings. Ben is using it in the sense of a few select “core products”. Okay, but the term can also encompass all products which featured that brand or which were tied into that world’s continuity.

Anyway, I’m glad for Bens research—I’m just saying that comparing a few narrowly defined “campaign settings” (i.e. core setting boxes/books) is just a start. The tip of the iceberg. Looking forward to more comprehensive, synthesized, and nuanced charts!

And yes, references to Greyhawk IP in OD&D, 1e, and 3e rulebooks do count as “consumer impressions”—that’s a nuanced metric i would like to see. Because the residual “consumer impressions” can be (and ought to be) tapped into for furture Wizards marketing. When those impressions (rather than just abstract sales categories) are taken into account, this leads to the recent 5e appearances of Warduke and the Kids from the Cartoon Show, and the “red box” 4e Starter Set. And Spelljammer.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think you misunderstand. It isn't that CCGs stole the players, it is that CCGs stole the money normally used to purchase TTRPGs because they were substantially more profitable. RPG companies were suddenly unable to sell their stock, and many such companies used sales from one product to bankroll the printing of the next. Without those sales, the lines collapsed.



Yea all that. But also players. I remember games that failed because of repeated missed schedules and CCG events were part of the conflict. As well as when those games didn’t run folks got together and played ccgs and eventually just did that. Mainly because a DM wasn’t needed, IMHO.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Probably due to my province (Quebec, Canada). Here, GURPS, Shadowrun became non existent. All that was left was Vampire and D&D and to some lesser extent, Warhammer, Palladium and a wee bit of other. Yes, the CCG took a large part. But CCG is not TTRPG. These are two distinct market. I know  a lot of CCG players that never touched a RPG in their entire life. The reverse is quite rarer. Even I played MTG any my collection is quite fine. The two systems are not targeting the same audience but a person can have many interests. Those who were not in the Vampire fad went somewhere else. That is CCG. But the goal here is to compare TTRPG with TTRPG not with an other market.



They are two markets - but being distinctly identifiable doesn't mean there isn't overlap both in end customer and intermediate customers - distributors and stores. And, since nobody's got infinite money, that's where the competition comes in. 
Those RPGers who started picking up MTG were probably spending less on their RPG hobby than they would have in the absence of MTG. Maybe they were able to turn that around into spending more if they managed their speculation right by getting in early enough and turning around their boxes of alphas (like they all seemed to be doing at Gen Con when it was swamped with MTG speculators). But I suspect they were in the minority.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> That I understand. But this is a consumer shift. Those lost consumers are no longer in the hobby of TTRPG.
> What we must compare is what those that stayed in the TTRPG industry decided to consume. TSR or Vampire? My money is on Vampire.



You're moving the goalposts.

Vampire was definitely popular and it definitely brought a lot of new people, especially women, into the hobby. On a quick search I wasn't able to uncover any actual comparison numbers, but I know they are out there somewhere. My recollection is that vampire outsold AD&D very briefly, before itself collapsing with the rest of the TTRPG industry in the late 90s.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Well, I admit that the B/X and BECMI boxed sets are hybrid products: mostly rules, but also featuring the KW campaign setting (esp. the Expert boxes, but also setting info in all of them, such as Masters Set world map). So it’s a borderline call. I agree they are not exactly the same product category as the classic 1990s TSR campaign setting boxed sets. But on the other hand, they contained more setting info (e.g. world map) than, say, the GH bits the OD&D, 1e, and 3e rulebooks. And for 6 years (from 1981 to 1987 when GAZ1 came out) those boxed sets were the only source for the KW campaign setting, other than adventure modules.
> 
> My point is that lining up a few key boxed sets and core books and calling that a “campaign setting” is a bit confusing, and “unfair “ to certain settings (eg missing GH Folio data, original RL module, DL War of the Lance modules, and Mystara’s various GAZes and split up boxed sets).
> 
> ...



Let me just say that I also VRY much appreciate the navel gazing.

And it got me thinking about putting these numbers based in ways like you elucidate.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> You're moving the goalposts.
> 
> Vampire was definitely popular and it definitely brought a lot of new people, especially women, into the hobby. On a quick search I wasn't able to uncover any actual comparison numbers, but I know they are out there somewhere. My recollection is that vampire outsold AD&D very briefly, before itself collapsing with the rest of the TTRPG industry in the late 90s.



Vampire didn't need to outsell D&D as a whole, but it was significant enough that people who wanted to play in a gothic vampiry setting played that instead of Ravenloft.  (well, not completely of course, but in large enough numbers to explain why sales of Ravenloft setting weren't nearly as high as the module 7 years earlier).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 18, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> And yes, references to Greyhawk IP in OD&D, 1e, and 3e rulebooks do count as “consumer impressions”—that’s a nuanced metric i would like to see. Because the residual “consumer impressions” can be (and ought to be) tapped into for furture Wizards marketing. When those impressions (rather than just abstract sales categories) are taken into account, this leads to the recent 5e appearances of Warduke and the Kids from the Cartoon Show, and the “red box” 4e Starter Set. And Spelljammer.




I understand what you're trying to do, but I disagree with it.

Look, as someone who loves to celebrate the past of D&D myself, I get the desire to see these things recirculated. And in terms of business ideas, reviving IP is the way to go.

...._but.... _we are not the target demographic of WoTC. At all. The number of "consumer impressions" that happened during the 80s (which is not the type of metric that is that easy to analyze) does not matter to the people who are starting to play 5e today.

The reason that we see, for example, Spelljammer is because the powers that be think they can modernize and sell it to a new generation. Because it is worthy of being revivified. Not because it had "consumer impressions" when it was available.

....which is why we haven't seen much on the Greyhawk or Mystara front. For various reasons, both are considered to be in competition with the main IP (Forgotten Realms). I think it is more likely we will see a Greyhawk release first, both because there is already an AP and because it's linked to the history (#50thanniversaryCONFIRMED!). But you don't need to juice the numbers for Mystara/Known World- you just need the people at Wizards to decide that there is a compelling case for bringing it back.*


*Arguably, the one thing arguing against it is that large parts of the setting relied on some real-world cultures, which is now seen as somewhat problematic.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 18, 2022)

billd91 said:


> They are two markets - but being distinctly identifiable doesn't mean there isn't overlap both in end customer and intermediate customers - distributors and stores. And, since nobody's got infinite money, that's where the competition comes in.
> Those RPGers who started picking up MTG were probably spending less on their RPG hobby than they would have in the absence of MTG. Maybe they were able to turn that around into spending more if they managed their speculation right by getting in early enough and turning around their boxes of alphas (like they all seemed to be doing at Gen Con when it was swamped with MTG speculators). But I suspect they were in the minority.



And maybe a bit of those simply left the market and the TTRPG failed to make new recruits to compensate for those that left. Remember that many that were avid players in the '80s now were starting to make families and have kids of their own. Just take my example, my daughter was born 1996. Although I kept playing a game of TTRPG and one of CCG per week, I was no longer playing 5 or 6 games. And even though I kept my D&D group, I did spend a good chunk of it in Vampire when my D&D players had other business at hand. Heck, none of my friends playing CCG had any experiences in TTRPG. If I had to guess, CCG players were almost exclusive to TTRPG with a few exceptions. Maybe one in twenty CCG players were from the TTRPG? Maybe less but not really more. 

I think here, that we are facing multiple causalities to the problems.
1) Old gamers switching to family matters. 
2) Some gamers completely switching over to CCG
3) Failure to bring in new recruits to TTRPG 
4) The fact that Vampire became so popular with those that were in the TTRPG means that the share of the lion that TSR used to have shrank in an unexpected way and TSR did not adjust fast enough. The same goes for many other TTRPG that were literally gutted in their sales.

Just putting the blame on CCG does not mean a lot.

If only CCG were responsible for the cave in of TTRPG, how do you explain the success of 3.xed? MTG was as popular as ever with sales stopped only by the sky with no signs of stopping. Yet, 3.xed became quite successful, enough that when D&D opted for a new edition, a third party company kept it alive and well. 3.xed became popular simply because many old RPGamers came back as their child were older and able to fend for themselves. And with these, new recruits were made. At that time, few RPGs were still in market and the Vampire fad had... faded.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2022)

I'm looking at my Moldvay (goddammit spellchecker, that is NOT moldy) Expert rulebook right now.  

The entire Karameikos setting material is exactly ONE page.  Plus a map.  Granted the Isle of Dread module, included in the Moldvay boxed set did include a little more - like two pages  plus a map- but, if we're considering that to be "setting guide", that's an awful stretch.  

I mean, seriously?  Does anyone honestly think that anyone bought the Moldvay (goddamit spellchecker) boxed set so they could see the Known World or Mystara setting?  

Methinks that @Dungeonosophy is perhaps overstating the case a bit for Mystara.  

I mean, let's not forget Dragon magazine.  How much setting material for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and then Mystara were in the magazine?  Should we also start counting magazine sales?  Just how far down the rabbit hole do we need to go?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2022)

Honestly @Helldritch  - I think your point #3 is probably the biggest one.  The gaming population just consistently bled away over the years and never brought in any new significant numbers of gamers.  Vampire might have done some, I suppose, but, overall, the hobby was stagnating for a long, long time.  Even with the boost in the 2000's with 3e and d20, we never really saw any serious increase in the numbers of active gamers until the release of 5e.  That's a long time to go between significant numbers of new gamers joining the hobby.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 19, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Honestly @Helldritch  - I think your point #3 is probably the biggest one.  The gaming population just consistently bled away over the years and never brought in any new significant numbers of gamers.  Vampire might have done some, I suppose, but, overall, the hobby was stagnating for a long, long time.  Even with the boost in the 2000's with 3e and d20, we never really saw any serious increase in the numbers of active gamers until the release of 5e.  That's a long time to go between significant numbers of new gamers joining the hobby.



The RPG industry did stagnated with new recruits. I remember the early 2000 as years of not having that many people interested in RPGs. It started to shift around 2006. Was it there that PF/Paizo started to really took roots? Or was it because WoW sparked the interest in RPGs anew and Burning Crusade was still a year away. I truly do not know. What I know is that it was around this time the number of people asking me to play skyrocketed. Most were WoW players but some were coming from the CCGs market. They saw that the CCG was quite hard to keep up with and searched for a less expensive hobby.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 19, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> The RPG industry did stagnated with new recruits. I remember the early 2000 as years of not having that many people interested in RPGs. It started to shift around 2006. Was it there that PF/Paizo started to really took roots? Or was it because WoW sparked the interest in RPGs anew and Burning Crusade was still a year away. I truly do not know. What I know is that it was around this time the number of people asking me to play skyrocketed. Most were WoW players but some were coming from the CCGs market. They saw that the CCG was quite hard to keep up with and searched for a less expensive hobby.



That feels a little late. 3E brought a bunch of lapsed gamers back, who then left again when 3.5 started to show its age and 4E was on the horizon.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That feels a little late. 3E brought a bunch of lapsed gamers back, who then left again when 3.5 started to show its age and 4E was on the horizon.



Yep, that is about my experience too. PF did keep the hobby aloft for a while though. It was not my cup of tea as I always considered it D&D on steroids; but it did a good job.


----------



## darjr (Jul 29, 2022)

I wonder if it’s possible that DMsGuild has sold more AD&D core books than TSR has? Is that possible to figure out? Is it a silly question?


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 29, 2022)

darjr said:


> I wonder if it’s possible that DMsGuild has sold more AD&D core books than TSR has? Is that possible to figure out? Is it a silly question?



It seems implausible to me.  They've only been available on there for a few years, and most people at any given time are buying the current edition.  I think interest in older ones is still pretty niche.


----------



## GreyLord (Jul 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> I wonder if it’s possible that DMsGuild has sold more AD&D core books than TSR has? Is that possible to figure out? Is it a silly question?




Well...that's a hard question to answer.

The answer to a degree is...There are records being kept which can tell you how many AD&D core books have been sold.  

Getting them if you are not a business associate is another matter.

If I may speak in parable for a moment.  

Whether they have sold MORE than the AD&D core books is a matter of opinion (I know this will be an unpopular statement here, especially in this thread).  I SUPPOSE you could take the information published in certain books that have been released on the matter as the gospel truth, but the problem with gospel truths is that there are a LOT of different religions and they don't always agree.

In that light, it depends on what you believe the numbers sold for the AD&D core books are.  How solid do you want your facts to be?  

ANOTHER wrench to toss into the matter, which I'm not sure that Riggs or anyone else actually addresses.  This actually deals directly with what happened with the Book deal to a degree as well.

There is a DIFFERENCE between the number of books sold, and the number of books sold thru.  It depends on how you look at the accounting and how you look at the numbers.  Of those not sold thru, how many actually were sold and pushed out and how many stayed in the warehouse?

Were they counted on the same sheets.  Which ones are being counted in the graphs?  Is that information even being accounted for?

Gospel Truth has a weird thing of being interpreted differently according to different people, even when the words stay the same.  And then you have the different Religions overall, which may take a similar idea, but have their own written canon for what they rely on.

It may be Riggs or someone else will be granted access to the DMsguild numbers at some point and use it for a comparison.  That can be some people's gospel truth when it comes out.

I don't expect WotC or Hasbro to really touch that line of thought with a ten foot pole though (at least I wouldn't if I were them, but I'm retired overall).  It's a pit of serpents that can strike with enough venom to be dangerous...in my opinion.


----------

