# Basic D&D Was Selling 600,000+/Year At One Point



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

The surprising part to me is that Basic fell off of a cliff in 1984. I knew that happened to AD&D, but I thought Basic was carrying TSR. Now I see that this was a real year of crisis.

Did Mentzer BECMI kill Basic...?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The surprising part to me is that Basic fell off of a cliff in 1984. I knew that happened to AD&D, but I thought Basic was carrying TSR. Now I see that thus was a real year of crisis.
> 
> *Did Mentzer BECMI kill Basic...?*




O. M. G.

I was just coming here to make that as a joke.

Evidence don't lie. Frank killed Basic. 

And Bargle was framed.

#JusticeforBargle


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The surprising part to me is that Basic fell off of a cliff in 1984. I knew that happened to AD&D, but I thought Basic was carrying TSR. Now I see that this was a real year of crisis.
> 
> Did Mentzer BECMI kill Basic...?




 No even as late as 1991 the black box sold hundreds of thousands of boxes. 

 It's mostly perception AD&D got the glory. I pointed this out years ago when people were going up WotC claims 5E was the greatest but never revealed that criteria. 5E starter sold 800k just over one years worth of Basic. 

 Even now we don't know if they were referring to units sold, money made money not adjusted for inflation etc. 

 The red box pre 5E was the biggest selling D&D item ever but exact numbers are unknown.

 Basic has various items as well eg B/X, Red box, black box each one sold huge numbers way higher than 3E or 4E phb total.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

1983. It looks like Mentzer was the only other basic to sell over 600k in a year.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Jul 8, 2022)

This is really a fascinating “what if?”

What if the box sets had gotten the full marketing push in the years to come?  What kind of game would we have now?


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> No even as late as 1991 the black box sold hundreds of thousands of boxes.
> 
> * It's mostly perception AD&D got the glory.*



That's certainly the way it went for my friends and me: once we had the option to "move up" to AD&D, we saw no point to sticking with Moldvay.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Follow up thought: it seems that while Basic did outsell AD&D...it didn't outsell it by all that much, in the grand scheme of things, and I wonder what amount of crossover there was between the customer bases?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> That's certainly the way it went for my friends and me: once we had the option to "move up" to AD&D, we saw no point to sticking with Moldvay.




 Yeah we went from BECMI RC to 2E. 

 BECMI is the better rulest now though imho. Probably a reason why OSE has dominated OSR.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> 1983. It looks like Mentzer was the only other basic to sell over 600k in a year.



But we're the sales in 1983 mostly Mentzer or Moldvay? When did Mentzer come out in the year?


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> No even as late as 1991 the black box sold hundreds of thousands of boxes.
> 
> It's mostly perception AD&D got the glory. I pointed this out years ago when people were going up WotC claims 5E was the greatest but never revealed that criteria. 5E starter sold 800k just over one years worth of Basic.
> 
> ...



Bit that's not what the numbers here show: Basic (inclusive of Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, and RC, apparently) outsold AD&D...but not by that much.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Follow up thought: it seems that while Basic did outsell AD&D...it didn't outsell it by all that much, in the grand scheme of things, and I wonder what amount of crossover there was between the customer bases?




 Outsold it by a lot. 

 From memory. 
1E phb 1 million

Basic red Box 1-1.5 million
Basic 1981 idk
Black box 600k







Parmandur said:


> Follow up thought: it seems that while Basic did outsell AD&D...it didn't outsell it by all that much, in the grand scheme of things, and I wonder what amount of crossover there was between the customer bases?




 Basic combined oursold 1E 2 or three  times over.
 The red box alone outsold 1E. That excludes 1981, the black box (600k 1991 iirc).

 Expert also sold a lot the CMI parts not so much. 

 Each major basic box outsold 2E both 3Es and probably 4E. 2E apparently sold 750k total.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Follow up thought: it seems that while Basic did outsell AD&D...it didn't outsell it by all that much, in the grand scheme of things, and I wonder what amount of crossover there was between the customer bases?



I'd expect heavy crossover. I don't recall knowing anyone from junior high or HS who started right out on AD&D: we all began with Basic and then moved to AD&D once we'd found our proverbial sea legs.


----------



## Davies (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> But were the sales in 1983 mostly Mentzer or Moldvay? When did Mentzer come out in the year?



I haven't been able to find confirmation, but precedent would suggest that it came out at GenCon of that year, August 18-21.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Outsold it by a lot.
> 
> From memory.
> 1E phb 1 million
> ...



That is not what the new numbers in the OP show.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> But we're the sales in 1983 mostly Mentzer or Moldvay? When did Mentzer come out in the year?



Mentzer was released summer. Not sure exactly when.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> And Bargle was framed.
> 
> #JusticeforBargle


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Davies said:


> I haven't been able to find confirmation, but precedent would suggest that it came out at GenCon of that year, August 18-21.



Which makes me wonder...when exactly did these sales start falling off? Did the new revision split the playerbase and kill sales momentum? Or did something culturally happen in the next year...?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Which makes me wonder...when exactly did these sales start falling off? Did the new revision split the playerbase and kill sales momentum? Or did something culturally happen in the next year...?




 1984 sales plummeted by 30%.

 Big problem being TSR had projected growth rates similar to 81-83.

 They had 300 odd staff


----------



## sevenbastard (Jul 8, 2022)

So your saying WOTC should bring a basic version back!!!


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

I saw what Bargle did last summer!

@Parmandur do you have an idea about these vs 5e sales?


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 8, 2022)

sevenbastard said:


> So your saying WOTC should bring a basic version back!!!



I would love to see that happen. They have something like it right now, don't they? Isn't there a starter pack intended for younger players just starting out?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

sevenbastard said:


> So your saying WOTC should bring a basic version back!!!




 They did 5E basic set sold 800k in North America few years back.


----------



## Davies (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Which makes me wonder...when exactly did these sales start falling off? Did the new revision split the playerbase and kill sales momentum? Or did something culturally happen in the next year...?



Pat Pulling started BADD in 1983, but it can't have been the only reason.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Didn’t @BenRiggs post TSR rev by month? Would that help figure out where those 1983 sales cam from?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Didn’t @BenRiggs post TSR rev by month? Would that help figure out where those 1983 sales cam from?




 83 was the peak 27 million in revenue. 

 Adjusted for inflation TSRs revenue was bigger than the entire rpg market a few years ago.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


>




Bargle is just waiting for his comeback. Search your feelings - you know Aleena was actually the evil one.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Davies said:


> Pat Pulling started BADD in 1983, but it can't have been the only reason.



That  Satanic Panic may have hit TSR un the pocketbook harder than I thought. It would explain a lot of the moves in latter day Basic and 2E.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

This thing here has outsold ever other edition of D&D with the possible exception of 1E, 5E phb and some basic variants. 



			https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Starter-Wizards-Team/dp/0786965592


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> I saw what Bargle did last summer!
> 
> @Parmandur do you have an idea about these vs 5e sales?



Those Starter Set numbers through 2018 from the other thread are the only solid numbers I've ever seen for 5E products. They have been experiencing huge growth year over year ever since then, though, amd the PHB seems to sell like hotcakes still.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That  Satanic Panic may have hit TSR un the pocketbook harder than I thought. It would explain a lot of the moves in latter day Basic and 2E.




 Nope Satanic panic started earlier 1981. 

 It was the greatest marketing thing for D&D ever.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That  Satanic Panic may have hit TSR un the pocketbook harder than I thought. It would explain a lot of the moves in latter day Basic and 2E.



Now, that's a good point. I do vividly remember several of my mother's friends becoming very concerned indeed about D&D and its effect on "the kids." This was back when folks were first freaking out about TV rotting your brain, but these women were much more worried about their sons' psyches getting overcome by this demonically obsessive game called "Dungeons and Dragons." And yes, they were absolutely serious about this.

EDIT: Yeah, you know, I think Zardnaar's right, though: the more those moms freaked out over the game, the more intriguing it became to the kids at school.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Nope Satanic panic started earlier 1981.
> 
> It was the greatest marketing thing for D&D ever.



The unorganized Stanic Panic, maybe. But BADD actually did succeed in getting the game pulled from major retailers, IIRC, which might explain this drop off entirely.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The unorganized Stanic Panic, maybe. But BADD actually did succeed in getting the game pulled from major retailers, IIRC, which might explain this drop off entirely.




 Maybe UA and Dragonlance in 85 saved D&D along with mass layoffs.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Maybe UA and Dragonlance in 85 saved D&D along with mass layoffs.



Did you read the charts in the OP...? Because the games never recovered.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Bargle is just waiting for his comeback. Search your feelings - you know Aleena was actually the evil one.


----------



## Jer (Jul 8, 2022)

sevenbastard said:


> So your saying WOTC should bring a basic version back!!!



They did. They just named it "Essentials Kit" instead of Basic Set. I would love to see those figures.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


>




BARGLE IS LOOKING FOR THE REAL KILLERS!


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jul 8, 2022)

None of this really surprises me.

IIRC the Basic Set (and others later on) were cheaper than a single AD&D hardcover book. So, more kids (and their parents) could easily afford them, so their sales outstripped the higher-priced AD&D books (of which there were also many more to buy if you wanted them all).


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Did you read the charts in the OP...? Because the games never recovered.





 That's also not what I said. I didn't claim they reached those heights again those two books were the money earners post slump.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> That's also not what I said. I didn't claim they reached those heights again those two books were the money earners post slump.



After the games collapsed and went on life support, yes.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 8, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> None of this really surprises me.
> 
> IIRC the Basic Set (and others later on) were cheaper than a single AD&D hardcover book. So, more kids (and their parents) could easily afford them, so their sales outstripped the higher-priced AD&D books (of which there were also many more to buy if you wanted them all).



I think that you put your finger on the right thing. The box was cheaper to buy and even if you went for the expert set, it was still cheaper than buying the PHB, DMG and MM. Even back then, most campaigns were ending around level 8-11. These two boxes would net you infinite play time if you were an average group of players. 

I knew a lot that never felt the need to go higher than these two boxed set.


----------



## Azzy (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Mentzer was released summer. Not sure exactly when.



The preface for the Mentzer Basic Set was written in February.


----------



## Jer (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> After the games collapsed and went on life support, yes.



Life support would be the "supplement treadmill" model - I'll be curious to see what the 2e sales numbers look like when they get posted.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> I knew a lot that never felt the need to go higher than these two boxed set.



Out of the dozen or so kids I played D&D with growing up, I was the only one (as our typical DM) who owned the other sets past Expert, so I can (at least anecdotally) agree with that!

But, for AD&D (and as I grew up), others owned typically 3-5 books each. Again, as DM, I owned most of the typical non-setting books, so over a dozen or so.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> After the games collapsed and went on life support, yes.




 Using that logic the games been on life support ever since. 

2E sold 750k, the 1991 black box apparently hit 600k. 

 That's more than 3.0, 3.5 and probably 4E. 

 Hell it's almost more than 3.0 and 3.5 combined for 2E. 

TSR defeated themselves through moronic decisions (3 times over last one was fatal).


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> I think that you put your finger on the right thing. The box was cheaper to buy and even if you went for the expert set, it was still cheaper than buying the PHB, DMG and MM. Even back then, most campaigns were ending around level 8-11. These two boxes would net you infinite play time if you were an average group of players.
> 
> I knew a lot that never felt the need to go higher than these two boxed set.



We made it to the Campaign Set exactly once, my gang of high school buddies.  When the characters hit level 15, we started CM1, _Test of the Warlords,_ and we played our way all the way through that module, all the way through the Thayatian War (as we ended up calling it).  Some of my best memories of D&D are from that era of my life, with that gaming group and the BECM modules.

But you're right: that was only once, in over 6 years of playing.  Most campaigns made it to about 10th or 11th level and then stopped.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 8, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> We made it to the Campaign Set exactly once, my gang of high school buddies.  When the characters hit level 15, we started CM1, _Test of the Warlords,_ and we played our way all the way through that module, all the way through the Thayatian War (as we ended up calling it).  Some of my best memories of D&D are from that era of my life, with that gaming group and the BECM modules.
> 
> But you're right: that was only once, in over 6 years of playing.  Most campaigns made it to about 10th or 11th level and then stopped.



Test of the Warlord... God was it great. I still remember how I played Ericall the king of Norworld and how my players were in awe in having me moving around and shaking hand and saying how proud "I" was that such heroes answered my call. These players were ready to let their character die for that king.

We played all the way to the Immortal set. Sometimes, my old players come back from their new staying area to see family members and they drop by, we have a few drinks and guess what, it is still one of the best campaign they ever had. Even better than many 1ed we have had.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> We played all the way to the Immortal set.



Yeah, we made it to the Immortals set once, but most did stop in the Expert set prior to level 15...


----------



## Von Ether (Jul 8, 2022)

I DMed Basic in high school but then went to Gamma World and TMNT and other games. While I played AD&D in college, I didn't run D&D game again until 3e.

I can see the allure of Basic as a OSR tabula rasa but I preferred Castle and Crusades until Worlds Without Number but that's just me.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)




----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 8, 2022)

Yeah, I still think Wizards is crazy for not tapping into the Mystara / BECMI nostalgia market. So far, they've shunted the BECMI / Mystara classics (Isle of Dread, Castle Amber, Lost City, In Search of the Unknown, and Keep on the Borderlands) to a licensee (Goodman Games).

They haven't even included those products in DnD Beyond, nor in Adventurers League storylines, nor in DMs Guild Community Content.

In contrast, Mike Mearls tapped into the BECMI mojo with the "red box" 4E Starter Set. Be interesting to see if/how sales spiked when using the BASIC D&D aesthetic.

We see a little nod to BASIC nostalgia in the presence of Warduke, etc. in Wild Beyond the Witchlight. (BTW, me and Mike Gray, author of the original Warduke module, have designed a homeworld for the LJN action figures.)

Having been raised on BECMI, I'm basically allergic to the nitpicky aspects of 5E.

I've started to design my own suite of Sixth Edition rulesets:









						6X D&D
					

June 6, 2022 Renton, Wash.  Wizards announces the Sixfold Experience The Fifth Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is widely regarded as the most successful edition of the game ever published. Yet Renton, Washington-based Wizards of the Coast is not content to rest on any laurels.




					sites.google.com


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Yeah, I still think Wizards is crazy for not tapping into the Mystara / BECMI nostalgia market. So far, they've shunted the BECMI / Mystara classics (Isle of Dread, Castle Amber, Lost City, In Search of the Unknown, and Keep on the Borderlands) to a licensee (Goodman Games).



Minor correction.

Isle of Dread and Keep on the Borderlands did make into the Next Play-test. The D&D Next adventures – so far - Merric's Musings

And the Keep on the Borderlands was broken up into a set of convention exclusive adventures and an epic based on them.

But I do get your overall point.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Yeah, I still think Wizards is crazy for not tapping into the Mystara / BECMI nostalgia market. So far, they've shunted the BECMI / Mystara classics (Isle of Dread, Castle Amber, Lost City, In Search of the Unknown, and Keep on the Borderlands) to a licensee (Goodman Games).
> 
> They haven't even included those products in DnD Beyond, nor in Adventurers League storylines, nor in DMs Guild Community Content.
> 
> ...



To be fair, the Goodman Games treatment of these products is top-notch.  I'm slowly collecting them all, and I'm amazed at the level of care and detail they put into each one.  I don't know if WotC _could _do a better job of it.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 8, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> To be fair, the Goodman Games treatment of these products is top-notch.  I'm slowly collecting them all, and I'm amazed at the level of care and detail they put into each one.  I don't know if WotC _could _do a better job of it.



All the more reason to actually support those products in the same way that the other Wizards 5E storylines are supported. (D&D Beyond, Adventurers League, opened for DMs Guild Community Content.)


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jul 8, 2022)

People frequently make claims about how every edition has been the best-selling edition. I would like to see these numbers divided by current US population of the time, or in some other way trying to account for the (massive) increases in population that occur over the periods between editions. Perhaps modulating by US GDP or something.

Because I'm pretty much certain that, if you accounted for US population growth, you'd see some rather significant differences from just looking at raw sales.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> I knew a lot that never felt the need to go higher than these two boxed set.



Yeah, me and my brothers and friends played BECMI for years--or rather "BE"! We only made it to Companion level at the very end. In fact, that one Dominion-building session (when my little brother established a Barony in the foothills of the Altan Tepes Mtns. in northern Karameikos)....that was our last BECMI session.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 8, 2022)

That's insanity Basic was killing AD&D; I had bought into the thinking D&D was the "baby" version and you wanted to move up into AD&D as quickly as possible.  From the looks of things, most people must have started with the D&D set - then never moved away to AD&D.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> That's insanity Basic was killing AD&D; I had bought into the thinking D&D was the "baby" version and you wanted to move up into AD&D as quickly as possible.



Yeah, that's a common misconception in the hobby's history, I'm afraid.  :-/

My group and I skipped AD&D entirely.  We played Basic until the mid-90s, took a few years off, then returned in 2000 with the 3rd Edition.  I can't imagine that we were the only ones to do that.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 8, 2022)

sevenbastard said:


> So your saying WOTC should bring a basic version back!!!



Nahhh. DCC has us more than covered there.


----------



## The Last Rogue (Jul 8, 2022)

Has he mentioned where he collated this data? I'm not doubting it; I am just curious. And, I likely missed where he did...


----------



## pogre (Jul 8, 2022)

The Last Rogue said:


> Has he mentioned where he collated this data? I'm not doubting it; I am just curious. And, I likely missed where he did...



He has an anonymous insider source that he is not going to disclose.


----------



## adamantyr (Jul 8, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> That's insanity Basic was killing AD&D; I had bought into the thinking D&D was the "baby" version and you wanted to move up into AD&D as quickly as possible.  From the looks of things, most people must have started with the D&D set - then never moved away to AD&D.



Honestly, I preferred BECMI. Advanced was confusing, over-complicated, and the books smelled funny. (To be fair, I was like 10 when I first encountered one.)


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 8, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> That's insanity Basic was killing AD&D; I had bought into the thinking D&D was the "baby" version and you wanted to move up into AD&D as quickly as possible.  From the looks of things, most people must have started with the D&D set - then never moved away to AD&D.



I do not think that basic was killing AD&D as much as it was catering to a different kind/type of players. I really liked "basic" but AD&D was something else entirerly.  I see it akin to sports. Some minor leagues matches are way more entertaining than the professional ones simply because some advanced tactics are not used and they make the games more reactive and less predictable.  

Basic has no skills on the character sheet, so it is the players' inventiveness that will drive the character forward.  In other "more" advanced systems, if it is not on the character sheet... 

Also, basic had the perception that it was easier to play. Which was true, but it was also harder to master both as a player and as a DM. This perception that it was easier, helped to make it a good seller for an introductory product for the game. At the time, players were owned only by the DM that would either tell you what you needed or would simply photocopy the necessary stuff at the photocopy center. Basic set was cheap enough that many would have their own copy. I had a group of six players with everyone owning a copy of basic, yet my 6 players strong group of AD&D only had one PHB copy,  mine.

The three books were at what? 25-30$ dollar range (45$ for a copy in French). Not every one had that money. The basic set was often seen under 20$. Three books to play vs one box. The calculus is not hard to make. The wallet much prefers the later.


----------



## BenRiggs (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Mentzer was released summer. Not sure exactly when.



FYI I do have some numbers for Holmes vs. Moldvay vs. Mentzer, and I'm sure I'll get around to posting them eventually...


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

BenRiggs said:


> FYI I do have some numbers for Holmes vs. Moldvay vs. Mentzer, and I'm sure I'll get around to posting them eventually...



Excite!


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

pogre said:


> He has an anonymous insider source that he is not going to disclose.



Multiple sources with corroboration.


----------



## The Last Rogue (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Multiple sources with corroboration.



(Full disclosure: Professor of journalism...so probably OVERTHINKING) He said the same to me on twitter. Just odd to specifically request anonymity over this, plus these types of numbers are hard to know from a publisher of that era, of that sales type...print run sure, but sales # is tricky... But, alas, its really just got my curiosity up and snoop on...

Numbers without context our sources ALWAYS hit me wrong. But, tbf, I am sure, again, it is me overthinking things on a summer's night.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Jul 8, 2022)

Is the Y axis $$ or Units? 

Also, not including Monster Manual is a huge miss and I would expect would increase AD&D sales by significant amount. I would expect MM to sell equal or more than DMG tbh. So to say Basic was outselling AD&D without including MM feels incorrect, or perhaps seeing what one wants to see.

Big cliff in mid-80's. That's when I stopped playing. Didn't realize I was such an influencer


----------



## The Last Rogue (Jul 8, 2022)

As a point of game comparison, TRIVIAL PURSUIT was first released in 1982 --- it became a MEGA hit...eager to be found by many ...it sold 100,000 copies. Now lots of things play into this...new, so underestimated print-run, a board game not a book (game)... (Source: shorturl.at/gryBR)


----------



## overgeeked (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The surprising part to me is that Basic fell off of a cliff in 1984. I knew that happened to AD&D, but I thought Basic was carrying TSR. Now I see that this was a real year of crisis.
> 
> Did Mentzer BECMI kill Basic...?



Looks like Holmes’ Basic set didn’t sell well initially, but B/X and BE did. It’s the CMI releases starting in 1984 where sales drop off a cliff.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Ryan Dancy steps into the Facebook thread and said something interesting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Looks like Holmes’ Basic set didn’t sell well initially, but B/X and BE did. It’s the CMI releases starting in 1984 where sales drop off a cliff.




 It's been known for a long time red box sold a metric boat load and CMI didn't do that well. 

 And 81-83 was the peak followed by 84 crash. 

 There's nothing new here except when those sales happened and why they went with 2E. 

 You don't campare sales of 2E vs lifetime sales of 1E as it was more popular in that regard. 

 Salers of 2E just needed to beat 1E in 1990 vs 88 or so. 

  3.0 was another front loaded edition sales wise it's why they did 3.5 so fast.


----------



## Rabbitbait (Jul 8, 2022)

I bought it in 1980, then the AD&D monster manual maybe a year later, then the AD&D players handbook maybe a year later and then the AD&D DMs guide. Bit ripped off that you needed the DMs guide for the Armour Class table.


----------



## R_Chance (Jul 8, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> Is the Y axis $$ or Units?
> 
> Also, not including Monster Manual is a huge miss and I would expect would increase AD&D sales by significant amount. I would expect MM to sell equal or more than DMG tbh. So to say Basic was outselling AD&D without including MM feels incorrect, or perhaps seeing what one wants to see.
> 
> Big cliff in mid-80's. That's when I stopped playing. Didn't realize I was such an influencer



I wondered the same. If you listed the books in order of numbers it would be PHB, MM, DMG among the groups I played with. MM outnumbered the DMG. I had 2 MM ('77) before the PHB even came out ('78). Ended up with a couple of them and finally the DMG in '79. We started with original D&D in '74 and moved on the AD&D (1E). Never played Basic / Expert although I bought / read them. That may make us a bit atypical I suppose.


----------



## overgeeked (Jul 8, 2022)

pogre said:


> He has an anonymous insider source that he is not going to disclose.



So…that’s not good for credibility.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> So…that’s not good for credibility.




 Don't take it as gospel. 

 What he is saying is nothing new though it's been known about for years if one has been paying attention. 

 Pre 5E red box was biggest selling D&D ever and that chart shows 1991 peaking as well which would be the Black Box. 

 He's not claiming anything revolutionary.

 Since they haven't released concrete numbers Basic added togather could still be the biggest selling ever idk.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 8, 2022)

None of this shows how 2e launched, though. I'd like to see these charts extend with 2e.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> None of this shows how 2e launched, though. I'd like to see these charts extend with 2e.



He is dropping the 2E data tomorrow.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Ryan Dancy steps into the Facebook thread and said something interesting.
> 
> View attachment 252945



That seems to be very strong evidence thst the Satanic Panic, contrsry to the usual dismissive depiction by many fans as a "great marketing" bit for D&D, was actually a body shot that TSR never recovered from. (@Snarf Zagyg  and @Zardnaar  have trotted that out lately, for example). This explains a lot about TSR's strategy shifts after 1984, and BADD getting D&D out of mainstream outlets.

Compare this to now, when WalMart, Target and Amazon carry the products with no problem. If JC Penny, Toys R Us, or Sears were still going concerns today, I'm sure they would, too.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> He is dropping the 2E data tomorrow.




 Be interesting to see. Afaik it sold 500k- 750k phb over 11 years. 

 Gary is also on record as saying 1E outsold it 2-1.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That seems to be very strong evidence thst the Satanic Panic, contrsry to the usual dismissive depiction by many fans as a "great marketing" bit for D&D, was actually a body shot that TSR never recovered from. (@Snarf Zagyg  and @Zardnaar  have trotted that out lately, for example). This explains a lot about TSR's strategy shifts after 1984, and BADD getting D&D out of mainstream outlets.
> 
> Compare this to now, when WalMart, Target and Amazon carry the products with no problem. If JC Penny, Toys R Us, or Sears were still going concerns today, I'm sure they would, too.




 I was referring to 1981. 

 Even with a 30% drop in 84 they would have been fine if they didn't hire 300+ staff.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Be interesting to see. Afaik it sold 500k- 750k phb over 11 years.
> 
> Gary is also on record as saying 1E outsold it 2-1.



I wouldn't necessarily view Gygax as a trustworthy source on latter-day TSR.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I was referring to 1981.
> 
> Even with a 30% drop in 84 they would have been fine if they didn't hire 300+ staff.



They didn't have a 30% drop, Basic sales fell closer to 70%, and never recovered.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> They didn't have a 30% drop, Basic sales fell closer to 70%, and never recovered.




 I wasn't refererencing Basic but previous numbers from other sources.  It's also from memory in interviews from ex TSR.

 And the numbers provided are only phb and equivalent there's no Dragonlance or UA for example in the OP.

 There was other big selling items as well back then not just phb.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I wasn't refererencing Basic but previous numbers from other sources.  It's also from memory in interviews from ex TSR.
> 
> And the numbers provided are only phb and equivalent there's no Dragonlance or UA for example in the OP.
> 
> There was other big selling items as well back then not just phb.



It's both AD&D and Basic. Basic tanked even harder in 1984, when BADD got going and would have gotten D&D out of mainstream stores.

If people aren't buying the core game...then they aren't buying supplements. It's really thst simple. People mostly play for a few years between Middle School and College. The game needs a constant influx of new players to keep going.

Granted, there were other problems like hiring family members and questionable expenditures _cough*Cocaine Habits*cough_


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I wasn't refererencing Basic but previous numbers from other sources.  It's also from memory in interviews from ex TSR.
> 
> And the numbers provided are only phb and equivalent there's no Dragonlance or UA for example in the OP.
> 
> There was other big selling items as well back then not just phb.



Right. And how many creature catalogs were sold? How many magic item compendium were sold? We do not have these number either. Though I agree with you that these numbers about UA and such would be fine. A comparison must have some limits...


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's both AD&D and Basic. Basic tanked even harder in 1984, when BADD got going and would have gotten D&D out of mainstream stores.
> 
> If people aren't buying the core game...then they aren't buying supplements. It's really thst simple. People mostly play for a few years between Middle School and College. The game needs a constant influx of new players to keep going.
> 
> Granted, there were other problems like hiring family members and questionable expenditures _cough*Cocaine Habits*cough_




 Well 84 Dragonlance is a thing 85 was UA. 

They're credited with keeping the lights on. 

 Supplements don't sell is a myth from later when they didn't sell. 

 Several adventures sold hundreds of thousands of copies KotBL being the big one but several others sold hundreds of thousands.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Well 84 Dragonlance is a thing 85 was UA.
> 
> They're credited with keeping the lights on.
> 
> ...



But they don't make up for the player base contracting: if new people aren't coming in, they don't replace people exiting the hobby really quickly.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Be interesting to see. Afaik it sold 500k- 750k phb over 11 years.
> 
> Gary is also on record as saying 1E outsold it 2-1.




I find that hard to believe. My personal experience is definitely skewed, but I just plain really doubt it, based on the relative availability that I've seen of the various books in 30 years of retailing them. It's true that I never sold 1e when it was new (unlike every D&D book from 1993 up). I know that 2e had a glut tactic that 1e wasn't as bad for, that could make the core 1e books have done better overall than 2e, but I'd be surprised if it was by that large a margin.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Right. And how many creature catalogs were sold? How many magic item compendium were sold? We do not have these number either. Though I agree with you that these numbers about UA and such would be fine. A comparison must have some limits...




 We had numbers for some this site had them. 

The Acaeum

 Big selling items were Element evil, KotBL, and 2-3 other Gary adventures.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> But they don't make up for the player base contracting: if new people aren't coming in, they don't replace people exiting the hobby really quickly.




 I'm not claiming that though. 

 Context was from memory sales or revenue dipped 30% overall in 84.  They were in trouble in 85. 

 Dragonlance and UA are often credited with saving the company as such until Lorraine bailed it out. 

 Remember they also reprinted ToEE 6 times including into 2E.

 Also remember the novels outperformed D&D at some points and 84 Dragonlance happened and that's not reflected in the data provided.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I find that hard to believe. My personal experience is definitely skewed, but I just plain really doubt it, based on the relative availability that I've seen of the various books in 30 years of retailing them. It's true that I never sold 1e when it was new (unlike every D&D book from 1993 up). I know that 2e had a glut tactic that 1e wasn't as bad for, that could make the core 1e books have done better overall than 2e, but I'd be surprised if it was by that large a margin.



Every account I've heard is that 1E sold considerably better than 2E.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Every account I've heard is that 1E sold considerably better than 2E.




 Yup Dancey claimed it sold 280k early (year 1-2) and trickled out over next ten years. 

 3.0 outsold it on release but apparently didn't hit the lifetime sales of 2E.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I'm not claiming that though.
> 
> Context was from memory sales or revenue dipped 30% overall in 84.  They were in trouble in 85.
> 
> ...



Prevented the lights from turning off only goes so far if the customer base contracts, long term, and they can't grow in normal stores. It doesn't look like they ever recovered from this blow, it was a slow drip death from there...


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Every account I've heard is that 1E sold considerably better than 2E.



Oh, I believe that 1e sold overall better than 2e. What I find hard to believe is the idea that it doubled it. I guess it depends on what's being compared exactly. There very well might be a "year two" comparison where that is true (or something like that). Lifetime? I dunno. Do we count the black books? Or are those 2.5?


----------



## John R Davis (Jul 8, 2022)

We played BECM up to 27th level until autumn 1985 then everyone went away to Uni, so that group and Uber campaign ended. Fabulous unrepeatable memories.
Hadn't really touched AD&D by then, played it and other things during those uni days.
I do recall the box sets being very affordable and very exciting when first perused.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Prevented the lights from turning off only goes so far if the customer base contracts, long term, and they can't grow in normal stores. It doesn't look like they ever recovered from this blow, it was a slow drip death from there...




 They could have though. TSR was never run well. 

 Things wax and wane with your logic if something isn't at its peak all the time it's a failure.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> They could have though. TSR was never run well.
> 
> Things wax and wane with your logic if something isn't at its peak all the time it's a failure.



Some things can remain consistently popular (Monopoly, Chess, etc), and D&D really is one of those things, if managed right.

This does go a long way to explain why TSR bent over backwards to not be threat to the BADD types moving forwards: they obliterated their business.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Oh, I believe that 1e sold overall better than 2e. What I find hard to believe is the idea that it doubled it. I guess it depends on what's being compared exactly. There very well might be a "year two" comparison where that is true (or something like that). Lifetime? I dunno. Do we count the black books? Or are those 2.5?




 Depends who you talk to exact figures on early D&D isn't known.

 I've seen figures of 1million+ through to 1.5 million for 1E, 2E highest I've seen is 750k with early sales of 280k (from Dancey).


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Found it print run estimates. 



			Print Run
		


 With sources.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Depends who you talk to exact figures on early D&D isn't known.
> 
> I've seen figures of 1million+ through to 1.5 million for 1E, 2E highest I've seen is 750k with early sales of 280k (from Dancey).




I guess it's possible. Still seems off to me, just on gut. I mean, I'm not giving too much weight to my own sales. (My store sold more 4e than I did 3.5 and I would never try to claim that 4e was overall more successful than 3.5 was!) My knowledge goes further than my own store, but like you say, these numbers have never been properly released, so who knows?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I guess it's possible. Still seems off to me, just on gut. I mean, I'm not giving too much weight to my own sales. (My store sold more 4e than I did 3.5 and I would never try to claim that 4e was overall more successful than 3.5 was!) My knowledge goes further than my own store, but like you say, these numbers have never been properly released, so who knows?




 Sone numbers were thrown around 2012/13 at pax east iirc presentation by Paizo iirc.  Lisa went through them in aftermath of TSR collapse. 

 From memory it's something like. 

1E 1+ million-1.5
2E 750k
3.0 500k+ (300k+ year 1 Dancey)
3.5 250-350
Pathfinder 250k

 It's been a while though grain of salt. It's known 3.5 collapsed market in 2004. 

 Overall downward trend though.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Sone numbers were thrown around 2012/13 at pax east iirc presentation by Paizo iirc.  Lisa went through them in aftermath of TSR collapse.
> 
> From memory it's something like.
> 
> ...



The article you posted says that the 1e Monster Manual had an initial print of 20k and year one sales of 50k. 



Zardnaar said:


> 3.0 500k+ (300k+ year 1 Dancey)
> 3.5 250-350
> Pathfinder 250k
> 
> ...



Is Paizo seriously trying to claim that Pathfinder sold as many copies as the low estimate for 3.5? Again, is this Lifetime to Lifetime? Because that sounds utterly impossible to me.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> The article you posted seems to say that the 1e Monsters Manual had a first print run of 20k and sold 50k in its first year.




 That's what it claims I made no reference to MM. That site tracks the secondary market has for years.

 D&D peaked later though 81-83 year on year growth maybe 80 as well I can't remember.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Sone numbers were thrown around 2012/13 at pax east iirc presentation by Paizo iirc.  Lisa went through them in aftermath of TSR collapse.
> 
> From memory it's something like.
> 
> ...



Really? I always thought that each edition had outsold the previous one. I guess that I was wrong...


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Really? I always thought that each edition had outsold the previous one. I guess that I was wrong...



4e definitely did not outsell 3.5, but otherwise I would have thought so. We could both be wrong, but then, so could these questionable numbers.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> 4e definitely did not outsell 3.5, but otherwise I would have thought so. We could both be wrong, but then, so could these questionable numbers.




 I think it may have outsold 3.5 at least on release. 

 It didn't last though and got outsold by Pathfinder perhaps as early as 2009 but got reported 2010.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Really? I always thought that each edition had outsold the previous one. I guess that I was wrong...




 Nope. 

 They like claiming that but you have to be careful how they word it. Usually it's things like presales or year 1. 

 3.5 didn't do that well relative to 3.0. 4E probably outsold it initially maybe even lifetime sales no one knows though. 

 Most of 4E were early with people buying blind it would seem. You can guess the reaction.


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 8, 2022)

*Moldvay for the win!*


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 8, 2022)

So, still probably to come: total B/X outselling advanced and the flat _decline_ of 2E.

We will probably also get some insight into their proliferation strategy. Actually starting with BECMI. As B sales declined, C, M, I and more followed.


----------



## reelo (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah we went from BECMI RC to 2E.
> 
> BECMI is the better rulest now though imho. Probably a reason why OSE has dominated OSR.



But OSE _isn't_ BECMI. It's Moldvay B/X


sevenbastard said:


> So your saying WOTC should bring a basic version back!!!



I'd be happier if they didn't. OSE exists and it's all you need for unadulterated Basic D&D.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 8, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> That's insanity Basic was killing AD&D; I had bought into the thinking D&D was the "baby" version and you wanted to move up into AD&D as quickly as possible. From the looks of things, most people must have started with the D&D set - then never moved away to AD&D.



So did I.  I never touched basic D&D, moving straight into AD&D, really 2nd edition AD&D.  But then for a number of years, I would often hear people say that the D&D Rules Cyclopedia was the only gaming book they'd need if they were stuck on a deserted island.  A lot of people had good things to say about is what I'm saying. 

It's very easy for us to have a narrow focus on not see the wider picture.  This reminds me of how shocked I was at how much the mobile gaming industry was making.  Those scammy crummy looking games like Evony and Game of War may generate more revenue than big budget AAA games for the PC and console.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I figured that Basic D&D was just a series of intro products, but over its lifetime, it actually outsold AD&D 1st edition. (Partly because 1st edition was replaced by 2nd edition in 1989. I’ll start rolling out the 2nd ed numbers tomorrow FYI.) These numbers would explain why in a 1980 Dragon article Gygax spoke of AD&D not being “abandoned.”
> Still, between 1980 and 1984, Basic outsold AD&D. The strong numbers for Basic D&D prompt a few questions. Where was the strength of the brand? Were these two lines of products in competition with each other? Was one “real” D&D? And why did TSR stop supporting Basic D&D in the 90s?



Just to confirm, these figures are just for the various Basic sets, or for the whole B/X and BECMI lines?  That is, are they including the Expert boxed sets, Companion, etc.?  Or _just _the Holmes Basic ('77), Moldvay Basic ('81), Mentzer Basic ('83), Denning Basic ('91), and Stewart Basic ('94)?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

reelo said:


> But OSE _isn't_ BECMI. It's Moldvay B/X
> I'd be happier if they didn't. OSE exists and it's all you need for unadulterated Basic D&D.





 Derp point. B/X is better tis true.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Just to confirm, these figures are just for the various Basic sets, or for the whole B/X and BECMI lines?  That is, are they including the Expert boxed sets, Companion, etc.?  Or _just _the Holmes Basic ('77), Moldvay Basic ('81), Mentzer Basic ('83), Denning Basic ('91), and Stewart Basic ('94)?




 Context OP or what we are discussing? 

 There's figures for Red box and black box idk ones for RC and 81 Moldvay. 

 But D&D took off 80-81 iirc and a lot of it was fueled by Basic.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Here is a bit of info from Ben in Facebook about the Basic sales charts


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Context OP or what we are discussing?



I quoted the OP because I was responding to the OP.



Zardnaar said:


> But D&D took off 80-81 iirc and a lot of it was fueled by Basic.



Late '79, after the Egbert controversy.









						How a pending lawsuit changed the original Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set
					

Jon Peterson uncovers the hidden history of the Holmes Basic Set




					www.polygon.com
				






> If anyone hoped this would alter Arneson’s calculus, it came too late: Arneson’s lawsuit would drop in February 1979. But surprisingly, that legal case would not be the biggest _D&D _news of 1979. In September, the disappearance of James Dallas Egbert III, who famously was believed to have become lost in the steam tunnels beneath a Michigan university, would suddenly catapult _D&D _to mainstream notoriety. And with that, sales of the _Basic Set _rose dramatically. Right before the steam tunnel incident, the _Basic Set _might have sold 5,000 copies a month. By the end of 1979, it was trading over 30,000 copies per month, and only going up from there.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

It seems to me the Satanic Panic was a double edged sword for TSR. 1981 and on it seems to have helped sales, but after BADD got going and products were dropped out of major retail stores, it wasn’t good.


----------



## grimslade (Jul 8, 2022)

I started with Moldvay and after a summer of play at the local library picked up the PHB, MM, and DMG for 1E at Christmas and my birthday. All still have the Joy Department store stickers still on them. Later, I had to purchase my books in 'seedy comic book dens' that my mother was less than thrilled about. The Satanic Panic turned D&D from a game you could buy for elementary school children in department and toy stores to a product you had to source from a 'dealer'. Fortunately, like any other addict, I could find my fix. I still get a thrill every time I go to Target and see the Starter and Essentials sets on the shelf.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> It seems to me the Satanic Panic was a double edged sword for TSR. 1981 and on it seems to have helped sales, but after BADD got going and products were dropped out of major retail stores, it wasn’t good.




 Pretty much. It may have impacted sales 84 it definitely accelerated them. 

 I suspect it was also saturation and bubble burst.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 8, 2022)

I'm pretty sure two factors really killed D&D sales in the '90s - MtG & the Storyteller system.  Lost a lot of players during those dark times, and I even abandoned the game at that time for a while.

I would be extremely curious to see how many UA books were sold (by year).  And how much the DL modules were gobbled up.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That seems to be very strong evidence thst the Satanic Panic, contrsry to the usual dismissive depiction by many fans as a "great marketing" bit for D&D, was actually a body shot that TSR never recovered from. (@Snarf Zagyg  and @Zardnaar  have trotted that out lately, for example). This explains a lot about TSR's strategy shifts after 1984, and BADD getting D&D out of mainstream outlets.
> 
> Compare this to now, when WalMart, Target and Amazon carry the products with no problem. If JC Penny, Toys R Us, or Sears were still going concerns today, I'm sure they would, too




This might be worth a deep dive, but the short answer is ... no. This is not strong evidence, IMO. It has to do with the correlation, not causation part. I know that you also post the Dancey facebook bit, but again ... these weren't the issues.

You can go back to Game Wizards with the relevant chapters and you'll see the issues re: revenue. But I'll expand on this is an actual thread, given that it's more about the moral panic and less about this specific issue.


----------



## Jer (Jul 8, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> I'm pretty sure two factors really killed D&D sales in the '90s - MtG & the Storyteller system.  Lost a lot of players during those dark times, and I even abandoned the game at that time for a while.



Chalking it up to MtG and Storyteller eating into TSR's lunch missed a key dynamic, I think, which is that roleplayers in the 90s saw AD&D as a dated, bloated system that felt unsatisfying to many groups of people.  The people who wanted more "realism" in their games balked at how "gamey" the system was and went looking for systems that had systems that fed their desire for more verisimilitude (Chaosium's BRP, Rolemaster, even GURPS).  Meanwhile folks who didn't really want more gritty realism were getting frustrated with various things and were looking for alternative types of games.  Of course what they were looking for varied from person to person or table to table - skill systems that didn't shackle them with arbitrary class restriction, or mechanics for social interaction that made a game something other than a combat game, or world-building that was more relevant to folks in the 90s than folks from the 70s.  Sometimes that last one just meant "give me a game that is set on Earth here and now, not some dumb fantasy world that never existed".  The early-to-mid 90s especially was before the Harry Potter explosion of fantasy and a time of trench coats and katana blades. Where even the superheroes had to be rethought to have grim expressions all the time and a multitude of pouches to get people to buy their comics.  It's no wonder that Vampire took off - it's right in that grim and serious, trench coat and katana world.  (It's also no wonder, IMO, that Vampire has never been able to reclaim those heights of popularity for exactly the same reasons).

Meanwhile AD&D and D&D both stayed firmly in early RPG design of the 70s and 80s and the products that TSR produced basically catered to people who liked that.  And they stayed that way right up until they went bankrupt, got bought by WotC, and the system was redesigned to be a 1990s game instead of an early 80s game. At which point you both had people who'd been away from it for a while and folks who were too young to be interested in trench coats and katanas anyway and were now abuzz with this Harold Potter person and his fantasy world (and the general burst of interest in YA fantasy that came off of it over the following years) taking a fresh look at it.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Nope.
> 
> They like claiming that but you have to be careful how they word it. Usually it's things like presales or year 1.
> 
> ...



Are... are you okay?

I think it's worth thinking about the fact that, for instance, Old School Essentials is B/X D&D reorganized (but no new rules or content), and its Kickstarter had almost 3,000 backers. That's good numbers for a forty-year old system. And the OSE Advanced Fantasy Kickstarter (which adapts AD&D 1E content to B/X power levels and mechanics) had 3,700 backers. How many of them were there for the AD&D vs. how many just pick up everything OSE is hard to say. But it makes me think WotC missed a step by not reviving Red Box back when they acquired TSR.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 8, 2022)

Jer said:


> Chalking it up to MtG and Storyteller eating into TSR's lunch missed a key dynamic, I think, which is that roleplayers in the 90s saw AD&D as a dated, bloated system that felt unsatisfying to many groups of people.  The people who wanted more "realism" in their games balked at how "gamey" the system was and went looking for systems that had systems that fed their desire for more verisimilitude (Chaosium's BRP, Rolemaster, even GURPS).  Meanwhile folks who didn't really want more gritty realism were getting frustrated with various things and were looking for alternative types of games.  Of course what they were looking for varied from person to person or table to table - skill systems that didn't shackle them with arbitrary class restriction, or mechanics for social interaction that made a game something other than a combat game, or world-building that was more relevant to folks in the 90s than folks from the 70s.  Sometimes that last one just meant "give me a game that is set on Earth here and now, not some dumb fantasy world that never existed".  The early-to-mid 90s especially was before the Harry Potter explosion of fantasy and a time of trench coats and katana blades. Where even the superheroes had to be rethought to have grim expressions all the time and a multitude of pouches to get people to buy their comics.  It's no wonder that Vampire took off - it's right in that grim and serious, trench coat and katana world.  (It's also no wonder, IMO, that Vampire has never been able to reclaim those heights of popularity for exactly the same reasons).
> 
> Meanwhile AD&D and D&D both stayed firmly in early RPG design of the 70s and 80s and the products that TSR produced basically catered to people who liked that.  And they stayed that way right up until they went bankrupt, got bought by WotC, and the system was redesigned to be a 1990s game instead of an early 80s game. At which point you both had people who'd been away from it for a while and folks who were too young to be interested in trench coats and katanas anyway and were now abuzz with this Harold Potter person and his fantasy world (and the general burst of interest in YA fantasy that came off of it over the following years) taking a fresh look at it.



Folks would do well to remember this. The cohort that discovered D&D through 5E is going to go through the same growing pains. You can already see it happening with the "veterans" -- many are frustrated with the limitations of the game and how it really isn't that great for "story" and non-combat oriented play. It might not be PbtA and FitD that "eats 5E's lunch" (or it might be) but something certainly will.

A new White Wolf/Vampire is waiting out there in the future, just out of sight.


----------



## Jer (Jul 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Folks would do well to remember this. The cohort that discovered D&D through 5E is going to go through the same growing apins. You can already see it happening with the "veterans" -- many are frustrated with the limitations of the game and how it really isn't that great for "story" and non-combat oriented play. It might not be PbtA and FitD that "eats 5E's lunch" (or it might be) but something certainly will.
> 
> A new White Wolf/Vampire is waiting out there in the future, just out of sight.



I will say that while this might be true, the market is in a very different place now than it was back in the early 1990s.  Everything is just ... bigger. White Wolf was able to swoop in because while D&D was the biggest fish in the RPG pool at the time, the RPG pool was really small.  A company that is going to be able to move into that space is likely to be another big gaming company or some startup that can convince investors that their games are going to give them an ROI in D&D numbers rather than a small hobbyist company like White Wolf. I suspect we're more likely to see a lot of little games that nibble into D&D - picking up numbers from disgruntled D&D players who are looking for something different - but D&D stays at the top. At least for the near term.  (Wizards could easily screw this up with whatever they do in 2024 though.)

Also I think a lot of folks go down design paths with new games that aren't as fruitful for building a "popular" game.  D&D is an easy game to play and to learn regardless of whether you are interested in storytelling or not.  It turns out, Vampire actually is too - for all it's talk of being a "Storytelling" game, the mechanics of Vampire make it a game that can be played by someone who doesn't actually care about their place in the narrative or story structure or drama or anything like that and just wants to play out a vampire power fantasy.  If there is a game coming that will knock D&D off its perch it will be another game like that.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 8, 2022)

Jer said:


> I will say that while this might be true, the market is in a very different place now than it was back in the early 1990s.  Everything is just ... bigger. White Wolf was able to swoop in because while D&D was the biggest fish in the RPG pool at the time, the RPG pool was really small.  A company that is going to be able to move into that space is likely to be another big gaming company or some startup that can convince investors that their games are going to give them an ROI in D&D numbers rather than a small hobbyist company like White Wolf. I suspect we're more likely to see a lot of little games that nibble into D&D - picking up numbers from disgruntled D&D players who are looking for something different - but D&D stays at the top. At least for the near term.  (Wizards could easily screw this up with whatever they do in 2024 though.)
> 
> Also I think a lot of folks go down design paths with new games that aren't as fruitful for building a "popular" game.  D&D is an easy game to play and to learn regardless of whether you are interested in storytelling or not.  It turns out, Vampire actually is too - for all it's talk of being a "Storytelling" game, the mechanics of Vampire make it a game that can be played by someone who doesn't actually care about their place in the narrative or story structure or drama or anything like that and just wants to play out a vampire power fantasy.  If there is a game coming that will knock D&D off its perch it will be another game like that.



Given how powerful influencers are, particularly with GenZ and younger millenials, I think if a game appears to knock D&D off being the only game in town (I don't think anything will supplant it; White Wolf didn't even do that for more than a quarter or two, as i recall from Shannon Applecline's histories) I think it will be because some person or group with a lot of pull decides to make the not-D&D a thing. Imagine of Critical Role came out with their own RPG rather than using D&D. I think that would have a major impact on D&D's dominance.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Just to confirm, these figures are just for the various Basic sets, or for the whole B/X and BECMI lines?  That is, are they including the Expert boxed sets, Companion, etc.?  Or _just _the Holmes Basic ('77), Moldvay Basic ('81), Mentzer Basic ('83), Denning Basic ('91), and Stewart Basic ('94)?



It's for all the Basics combined: they guy who posted these said he would do a breakdown in the future, because he has the data.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> This might be worth a deep dive, but the short answer is ... no. This is not strong evidence, IMO. It has to do with the correlation, not causation part. I know that you also post the Dancey facebook bit, but again ... these weren't the issues.
> 
> You can go back to Game Wizards with the relevant chapters and you'll see the issues re: revenue. But I'll expand on this is an actual thread, given that it's more about the moral panic and less about this specific issue.



I mean, if the BADD movement got the game out-of stores and then sales fell over 70%, I'm pretty comfortable with the causal element.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, if the BADD movement got the game out-of stores and then sales fell over 70%, I'm pretty comfortable with the causal element.




The timing isn't correct. And there's more on this in the Peterson book.

Also? The revenue numbers don't match.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The timing isn't correct. And there's more on this in the Peterson book.
> 
> Also? The revenue numbers don't match.



Someone should do a comparison.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

When was BADD firmed? When did the stores drop D&D?


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

BADD was formed in 1983, after Pat Pulling's wrongful death lawsuits against her son's Irving's high school principal and against TSR had been dismissed.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Someone should do a comparison.












						D&D in the 80s, Fads, and the Satanic Panic
					

TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE! Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!  Wait, no, that's not it. ....Today is a good day to be alive! That's better! If you are into the history of our hobby, the last few years have seen an unprecedented explosion of material and research about the early days. Now, soon to be...




					www.enworld.org
				




As I discuss here, this was really about market saturation for the core books. Other than a Jim Ward comment complaining about moms getting the product pulled from JC Penney (which I can't place a time on), we don't have any data on the interplay between the Panic helping sales and hurting distribution, or the time.

What we do know is that the first "collapse" of TSR was not a collapse in revenue, but a combination of mismanagement (overhiring based on insane projections), flat-out bizarre project (did they really need to raise a boat from the bottom of Lake Geneva), and a shift in focus from selling core rule books to selling other products (e.g, Dragonlance line, UA, OA, etc.).


----------



## adamantyr (Jul 8, 2022)

I am definitely buying the book, this is interesting stuff!

Not being able to sell D&D in big retailers was a huge blow to the industry, but maybe not one that was felt for awhile because it took time for them to realize the TTRPG player market wasn't really growing. (Although, how many stories do we hear of someone who "gamed in college" and only got back to it decades later?)

I also recall seeing shelves of 1E DMG's at the local bookstore that just weren't selling, so I do think over-saturation was a problem.

It would be interesting to get real numbers from WotC for sales of various editions, but we'll likely never get that data.

I do find it interesting that people can't help but try and use sales figures to say "See? My edition is BETTER!" Some things never change...


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

In 1984 you could still buy D&D stuff at sears so it was after that. Maybe it was banned sometime in 1984, early enough and it would fit.
Though that add was in October 1984.








						The Ads of Dragon: D&D Poster
					

If you ever need a concrete reminder that the days of Dungeons & Dragons as a mainstream pop cultural phenomenon are long past, you need onl...




					grognardia.blogspot.com


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> In 1984 you could still buy D&D stuff at sears so it was after that. Maybe sometime in 1984, early enough and it would fit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I started in '85, and for at least the first couple of years my primary places to find D&D books were the B. Dalton book store (which is also where I got Dragon magazine) and K B Toys at the largest shopping mall in my area.  When my family moved from NH to PA in 1987, our local mall had an actual hobby and game store, and that became my new favorite place and spot to shop.  Although I think I recall the book store in that mall also carrying D&D books.


----------



## Jer (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I started in '85, and for at least the first couple of years my primary places to find D&D books were the B. Dalton book store (which is also where I got Dragon magazine) and K B Toys at the largest shopping mall in my area.  When my family moved from NH to PA in 1987, our local mall had an actual hobby and game store, and that became my new favorite place and spot to shop.  Although I think I recall the book store in that mall also carrying D&D books.



You could get D&D modules and books at Toys R' Us until at least 1986 I think.  I think '86 because I bought the Marvel Superheroes Advanced RPG at a Toys R' Us and it came out in '86.  At the time they had a small TSR section that included the boxed sets, modules and some of the hardcovers (I vividly remember seeing Unearthed Arcana there for the first time).

By '87 I think they were out at Toys R Us but Waldenbooks had a fully stocked D&D section - I got most of my GAZ series modules there.

I'm actually not sure what impact BADD had on getting books removed from shelves.  Is there any documented history of their successes? (I know some of the smaller bookstores probably got pressured to drop the books but that kind of thing usually happens more due to local pressure than national pushes).


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

I having a hard time finding when D&D was banned from Sears.


----------



## The Scythian (Jul 8, 2022)

I know that the Toys R Us closest to me carried BECMI D&D all the way through to the Immortals set and AD&D through to the late 1980s or early 1990s, when they were unloading some of the later 1st edition AD&D hardcovers at bargain basement discounts.  Although I didn't have occasion to visit Toys R Us much after that, I know that they carried the early '90s rerelease of the board game Dungeon and the version of Basic that was released around that same time.

I know that D&D (Rules Cyclopedia era) and AD&D (especially 2nd edition) were available at every chain bookstore in my area throughout the 1990s.


----------



## Jer (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> I having a hard time finding when D&D was banned from Sears.



I'm wondering if they were actually banned or if Sears just dropped them due to low sales or something.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

I'm flipping through online archived Christmas catalogues from the major department stores right now.

I see that the 1983 Sears wishbook has D&D and Star Frontiers, and 1984 has a full page of D&D and AD&D, including the revised art hardcovers, a few Grenadier Dragon Lords minis and a gift set of 4 Endless Quest books, but no sign of D&D in the 1985 catalogue.

1984 JC Penneys also no sign.  1982 JC Penneys has the D&D electronic game, but I'm not finding D&D itself.  1983 the closest thing is Crossbows & Catapults.  

1984 Montgomery Ward no sign.  1981 Montgomery Ward has the D&D "computer labyrinth" game (along with Dark Tower and a couple of similar games, and funnily enough a Ouija board on the same page), but no actual D&D.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I'm flipping through online archived Christmas catalogues from the major department stores right now.
> 
> I see that the 1983 Sears wishbook has D&D and Star Frontiers, and 1984 has a full page of D&D and AD&D, including the revised art hardcovers, a few Grenadier Dragon Lords minis and a gift set of 4 Endless Quest books, but no sign of D&D in the 1985 catalogue.
> 
> ...




So a quick note on that-

the Sears catalog was, going into the late 70s and early 80s, still a big deal. 

But the presence of D&D in the 84 Wishbook meant that it would have captured the '84 sales. More importantly, the 80s saw a massive spread in the mall (both "regular" and "strip") as well as the Big Box stars (Toys R Us) that became the primary focus of D&D sales outside of hobbyist shops.

That's why it's complicated; this is before even getting into distribution through ... scholastic book sales (yes, D&D was distributed in the 1980s through school-sponsored book sales).


----------



## Reynard (Jul 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's why it's complicated; this is before even getting into distribution through ... scholastic book sales (yes, D&D was distributed in the 1980s through school-sponsored book sales).



Then, as now, the extremists targeted school boards as the front line in their culture war, and many acquiesced not because they agreed but because they did not want to deal with the crazies over such a small issue. So many schools lost their D&D clubs.


----------



## The Glen (Jul 8, 2022)

One reason behind the high sales of the BECMI sets and related products were they were translated is far more languages than AD&D products.  I believe it was 17 different languages compared to about half that for 1st edition.  The Japanese basic set with its manga-style presentation was a notable standout.  There's a reason why Mystara is far better known in Europe and Asia compared to the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.  If you wanted to buy a Hebrew D&D game world your options were Karameikos or Karameikos.  Mentzer talked about it in an interview years ago.


----------



## The Glen (Jul 8, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> To be fair, the Goodman Games treatment of these products is top-notch.  I'm slowly collecting them all, and I'm amazed at the level of care and detail they put into each one.  I don't know if WotC _could _do a better job of it.



Except that fold-out map in Castle Amber.  That was rather oddly placed.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

The Glen said:


> One reason behind the high sales of the BECMI sets and related products were they were translated is far more languages than AD&D products.  I believe it was 17 different languages compared to about half that for 1st edition.  The Japanese basic set with its manga-style presentation was a notable standout.  There's a reason why Mystara is far better known in Europe and Asia compared to the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.  If you wanted to buy a Hebrew D&D game world your options were Karameikos or Karameikos.  Mentzer talked about it in an interview years ago.



Those sales aren't actually included in the OP.  Someone asked on Ben's FB post, and he confirmed these are just showing North American sales.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> BADD was formed in 1983, after Pat Pulling's wrongful death lawsuits against her son's Irving's high school principal and against TSR had been dismissed.



BADD got a huge boost in 1986-1987, too, thanks to the antics of Sean Sellers' defense attorney, who coached him to claim "the Dungeons and Dragons made me do it" as a murder defense.  It was all the news could talk about in Oklahoma.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Jul 8, 2022)

So safe to say Basic is still the best selling D&D product to date?


----------



## David Howery (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> BADD was formed in 1983, after Pat Pulling's wrongful death lawsuits against her son's Irving's high school principal and against TSR had been dismissed.



as much as I despised the Satanic Panic people, I always hesitated to denounce this particular person.... losing a child has to be the worst thing in the world....


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

David Howery said:


> as much as I despised the Satanic Panic people, I always hesitated to denounce this particular person.... losing a child has to be the worst thing in the world....



One does have to have a lot of sympathy for her loss.  That being said, she engaged in a years-long crusade of extensive fraud and perjury as her coping mechanism.  Lying to courts, police departments, and much of America through sensationalist media, deceitfully editing newspaper articles and misrepresenting facts, motivating countless ignorant parents and religious figures to demonize an innocent and beneficial hobby, and punish kids for no real threat or misdeed.






						Michael A. Stackpole: The Pulling Report
					

Patricia Pulling is a woman known for having mounted a brave campaign against the diabolical forces that have been unleashed in America today. A licensed private Investigator, she is the founder of Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons and the author of The Devils Web



					www.rpgstudies.net


----------



## Bravesteel25 (Jul 8, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> Nahhh. *Old School Essentials* has us more than covered there.



Fixed that for you. 

In all seriousness, I'm not surprised by how well Basic sold, it's a great system with a nice presentation; so much so that many players ended up using mostly Basic rules when they were playing AD&D.*

_*Note: I've heard this by word of mouth. I was not born when the systems in question were popularly played._


----------



## David Howery (Jul 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> One does have to have a lot of sympathy for her loss.  That being said, she engaged in a years-long crusade of extensive fraud and perjury as her coping mechanism.  Lying to courts, police departments, and much of America through sensationalist media, deceitfully editing newspaper articles and misrepresenting facts, motivating countless ignorant parents and religious figures to demonize an innocent and beneficial hobby, and punish kids for no real threat or misdeed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



true, she definitely went too far.  Always wondered if she did/should have gotten some counseling to help her deal with her grief.  As it was, the statistics came out later showing that D&D was far from a negative influence, and quite the opposite in fact.  Luckily, her crusade didn't really accomplish much...


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2022)

DarkCrisis said:


> So safe to say Basic is still the best selling D&D product to date?



I'm not sure about _that, _but it is safe to say that Basic D&D was a lot more successful than most people here thought.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

DarkCrisis said:


> So safe to say Basic is still the best selling D&D product to date?



No, not really: one of the best, still, but the 5E numbers post 2018 (the last solid data we have for the Starter Set) wheb sales actually blew up in 2019 would be interesting to compare in detail. Also, this is combining multiple Editions of basic, and @Benjamin Olson  has suggested that he will do a comparative breakdown.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'm not sure about _that, _but it is safe to say that Basic D&D was a lot more successful than most people here thought.



I’m not sure either. But I suspected these numbers, and we have been told of at least their magnitude by insiders before. Having exact numbers is refreshing though. And still revelatory, I’d never would have guessed that it accomplished such sales multiple years like that.

Edit to add: I also agree with @pramadur above


----------



## Reynard (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> I’m not sure either. But I suspected these numbers, and we have been told of at least their magnitude by insiders before. Having exact numbers is refreshing though. And still revelatory, I’d never would have guessed that it accomplished such sales multiple years like that.



It is of course impossible to know, but I would be curious how many of those sets went largely or completely unused. How many kids tried it but couldn't figure it out? How many decided it just wasn't as much fun as their Atari 2600? How many didn't have friends nearby enough to make it work?


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It is of course impossible to know, but I would be curious how many of those sets went largely or completely unused. How many kids tried it but couldn't figure it out? How many decided it just wasn't as much fun as their Atari 2600? How many didn't have friends nearby enough to make it work?



I think, partially, you can tell by how many intact boxes are on the market. There are some but they are also rare.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> I think, partially, you can tell by how many intact boxes are on the market. There are some but they are also rare.



I'm not sure about that. If the kids weren't using them they would have just as likely ended up in the trash as safely stored away.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> No, not really: one of the best, still, but the 5E numbers post 2018 (the last solid data we have for the Starter Set) wheb sales actually blew up in 2019 would be interesting to compare in detail. Also, this is combining multiple Editions of basic, and @Benjamin Olson  has suggested that he will do a comparative breakdown.



It is combining all five Basic sets, but OTOH it's also leaving out both Expert sets, CMI, the Rules Cyclopedia, and all those international editions (the numbers in the OP just being North American sales).  One of BECMI's big claims to fame is how many languages it got translated into and how many countries it was distributed in.

I'm definitely eager to see more numbers.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure about that. If the kids weren't using them they would have just as likely ended up in the trash as safely stored away.



True but if most of them were not used the raw numbers of stored ones go up, no?


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> I’m not sure either. But I suspected these numbers, and we have been told of at least their magnitude by insiders before. Having exact numbers is refreshing though. And still revelatory, I’d never would have guessed that it accomplished such sales multiple years like that.
> 
> Edit to add: I also agree with @pramadur above



The surprise to me was the collapse of Basic: I didn't realize both lines contracted at the same time.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Adding Jon Petersons blog about TSR finances 













						Game Wizards: TSR Financials
					

Underpinning the business story of Game Wizards  is the financial model shown here of TSR as a company, from the founding of TSR Hobbies i...




					playingattheworld.blogspot.com


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 8, 2022)

Bravesteel25 said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> In all seriousness, I'm not surprised by how well Basic sold, it's a great system with a nice presentation; so much so that many players ended up using mostly Basic rules when they were playing AD&D.*
> 
> _*Note: I've heard this by word of mouth. I was not born when the systems in question were popularly played._



You didn't fix anything, serious or no; I remain thoroughly unimpressed by OSE. To each their own, but for my money DCC does virtually everything Basic/BECMI/RC etc tried to do and improves upon them 1,000%. It isn't a rehash, it's an alternate vision of what the game could have - nay, SHOULD have - been.

All while remaining like 90% compatible with everything TSR published.

But we are wandering far afield of the thread topic now.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Adding Jon Petersons blog about TSR finances
> 
> View attachment 253006
> 
> ...



Those numbers seem to match up with the Satanic Panic doing longterm damage theory...


----------



## Reynard (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Adding Jon Petersons blog about TSR finances
> 
> View attachment 253006
> 
> ...



Wow, look at that gulf between revenue and profit! I mean, Peterson explained it in the book, but maybe because I was listening to the audio version it didn't really register until seeing that graphic.


----------



## Jaeger (Jul 8, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> People frequently make claims about how every edition has been the best-selling edition. I would like to see these numbers divided by current US population of the time, or in some other way trying to account for the (massive) increases in population that occur over the periods between editions. Perhaps modulating by US GDP or something.
> 
> Because* I'm pretty much certain that, if you accounted for US population growth, you'd see some rather significant differences from just looking at raw sales.*




I agree. the B/X essentially 'made' D&D, and set a tone for the game that lasted for decades.




FitzTheRuke said:


> Is Paizo seriously trying to claim that Pathfinder sold as many copies as the low estimate for 3.5? Again, is this Lifetime to Lifetime? *Because that sounds utterly impossible to me.*




I don't think so. 3.x had several years of life left in it, and many thought 4e came too soon.

Irrespective of anyone's opinion of the system, the release of 4e did cause a split in the D&D fanbase that PF exploited.

It is worth noting though that while PF did outsell 4e - It only really outsold it by a little bit.

That is why _in my opinion_ WotC made the call to shift to 5e so quick when the writing was on the wall: D&D doesn't outsell or get outsold by "a little bit". 

D&D is the dominant RPG IP because it outsells its nearest competitor by multiple orders of magnitude; controlling the RPG market.

That was _beginning_ to slip under 4e. So we got the quick shift to 5e...




darjr said:


> It seems to me the Satanic Panic was a double edged sword for TSR. 1981 and on it seems to have helped sales, but *after BADD got going and products were dropped out of major retail stores, it wasn’t good.*




Although many other stores continued to sell D&D - people forget exactly how big Sears and JC Penny were back in the day.

That + the horrific Mismanagement at TSR was a double blow that was hard to come back from.




Reynard said:


> Given how powerful influencers are, particularly with GenZ and younger millenials, I think if a game appears to knock D&D off being the only game in town (I don't think anything will supplant it; White Wolf didn't even do that for more than a quarter or two, as i recall from Shannon Applecline's histories) I think it will be because some person or group with a lot of pull decides to make the not-D&D a thing. *Imagine of Critical Role came out with their own RPG rather than using D&D. I think that would have a major impact on D&D's dominance.*




CR would have to release their "D&D" at the right time. It would take both WotC botching something pretty big in their 2024 not new edition releases, and CR getting their rules set just right, and absolutely nailing it on landing.

Even then it would take years to chip into D&D's player network. And that it assuming that WotC wouldn't do what they did with 4e, and use that fat megacorp budget to pivot to a new edition to undercut what CR was doing...


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Are... are you okay?
> 
> I think it's worth thinking about the fact that, for instance, Old School Essentials is B/X D&D reorganized (but no new rules or content), and its Kickstarter had almost 3,000 backers. That's good numbers for a forty-year old system. And the OSE Advanced Fantasy Kickstarter (which adapts AD&D 1E content to B/X power levels and mechanics) had 3,700 backers. How many of them were there for the AD&D vs. how many just pick up everything OSE is hard to say. But it makes me think WotC missed a step by not reviving Red Box back when they acquired TSR.




 Wow that's a hot mess. Was in a hurry in phone and didn't check. 

 Word salad I blame the French.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 8, 2022)

Jaeger said:


> Although many other stores continued to sell D&D - people forget exactly how big Sears and JC Penny were back in the day.



I do remember seeing AD&D products in places like Kaybee Toys in the mall circa 1987.  I think I got my first copy of Keep on the Borderlands at Kaybee around that time, but it might have been on clearance and AD&D disappeared from their shelves.  While I doubt TSR would be able to maintain the sales they had in 1983-84, I do wonder if sales would have been better a few years later if their products were still found in places like Sears or K-Mart.  By 1990, the only place I could find any role playing game was at a specialist hobby store.  I imagine a lot of people who might have been intrigued by D&D just never went to a retail outlet where it was for sale.  

*I kind of feel the same way about comic books.  In the 1980s, I could find comic books in regular book stores, convenience stores, supermarkets, etc., etc.  But then the only place I could find them was in boutique retailers.  This was before we had places like Barnes & Nobles with a big graphic novel section, so a lot of kids probably never got to go to some of these boutique retailers to buy comics.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> No, not really: one of the best, still, but the 5E numbers post 2018 (the last solid data we have for the Starter Set) wheb sales actually blew up in 2019 would be interesting to compare in detail. Also, this is combining multiple Editions of basic, and @Benjamin Olson  has suggested that he will do a comparative breakdown.




 Other way round the basic starter set data we have indicates Basic outsold it. 

 800k sales total vs 600k in one year. 

 We don't actually have the data required. One can say Basic is the biggest selling D&D if all time that we have numbers for. 

 WotC have claimed 5E is the most successful D&D of all time but never gave details on what metric they used eg sales, profit or revenue. 

I'm confident 5E revenue is higher in raw numbers than 1983 but they may not have adjusted for inflation.

 It's been well known for years Basic red box sold over a million maybe 1.5. 

 But the 82 and black box versions also sold more by themselves than some editions plus the red box.


----------



## darjr (Jul 8, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Yup Dancey claimed it sold 280k early (year 1-2) and trickled out over next ten years.
> 
> 3.0 outsold it on release but apparently didn't hit the lifetime sales of 2E.



Anybody have this quote handy?


----------



## mamba (Jul 8, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Recently Ben Riggs shared some sales figures of AD&D 1st Edition. Now he has shared figures for Basic D&D from 1979-1995, and during the early 80s is was selling 500-700K copies per year.
> 
> Ben Riggs' book, *Slaying the Dragon*, which is a history of TSR-era D&D, comes out soon, and you can pre-order your copy now.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Anybody have this quote handy?




 It's from memory. I can't read the 2E figures. 

 280k sales year 1 (Dancey)  and I've seen figures as high as 750k lifetime for 2E. 

 This is quoting from memory I think Paizo supplied numbers in 2013 pax east or another con. I wasn't there but numbers were put up on forums. 

 From memory 

3.0 500k
3.5 250-350k
Pathfinder 250
Basic 1.5 million+
1E 1-1.5 million.

Dancey has claimed 3E 300k+ year 1 from memory.


----------



## darjr (Jul 9, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> It's from memory. I can't read the 2E figures.
> 
> 280k sales year 1 (Dancey)  and I've seen figures as high as 750k lifetime for 2E.
> 
> ...



Thank you!

Now we just need a decent swag at 4e numbers. Time will tell but I'm so impatient.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 9, 2022)

darjr said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Now we just need a decent swag at 4e numbers. Time will tell but I'm so impatient.




 Well idk how accurate these figures were and I saw them years ago right before 5E landed. People didn't really believe them when I mentioned it playing the source game. Broadly speaking Basic and 1E numbers were roughly known for years. 

  Context people were pushing 4E was best selling D&D ever but people couldn't source it either. I have seen some source 4E presakes and it outsold 3.5. 

 If Paizo numbers are even in the ballpark though outselling 3.5 isn't hard.


----------



## darjr (Jul 9, 2022)

Knowing that WotC had all these numbers internally the nostalgia products now make a lot more financial sense.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2022)

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this "Egbert Incident" in late 1978?  It's about 8 years before I started playing.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what is this "Egbert Incident" in late 1978?  It's about 8 years before I started playing.
> 
> View attachment 253028








						James Dallas Egbert III - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> James Dallas Egbert III - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, thank you.  I knew the name sounded familiar...something about the graph gave me the impression that it was an internal TSR thing.

EDIT:  Dang.  It looks like that tragic story really was the launching pad for D&D.  Sales quadrupled in just one year.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 9, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Other way round the basic starter set data we have indicates Basic outsold it.
> 
> 800k sales total vs 600k in one year.
> 
> ...



It's hard to say from a few angles: the Starter Set is not exactly equivalent to the Basic Set, and they have had the rules inside free online for 8 years.

The one big number I know of recently is that Beyond has 10 million active users, which probably tells the story better than any individual product sales.


----------



## Jer (Jul 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Wow, look at that gulf between revenue and profit! I mean, Peterson explained it in the book, but maybe because I was listening to the audio version it didn't really register until seeing that graphic.



I haven't read the book but I assume what that gulf means is that the money was being drained out of the company by the guys at the top rather than being reinvested back into the company?

I can also see why some folks are willing to reevaluate Lorraine Williams a little bit - without the next decade on the graph it's not clear, but it really does look like at the very least her takeover led to TSR surviving for another decade.  Profits holding steady while revenue is increasing at a huge rate is one type of mismanagement, but having your profits go _down_ while your revenue is going up is either just next level incompetence or highly competent legal theft from the company.  (And geez if TSR had collapsed in 1987 instead of 1997 would there have been anyone to buy it?)


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 9, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> It's from memory. I can't read the 2E figures.
> 
> 280k sales year 1 (Dancey)  and I've seen figures as high as 750k lifetime for 2E.
> 
> ...



No need to work from memory, we have fresh numbers for 2E in comparison available:


Zardnaar said:


> It's from memory. I can't read the 2E figures.
> 
> 280k sales year 1 (Dancey)  and I've seen figures as high as 750k lifetime for 2E.
> 
> ...



No need to rely on memory, we have fresh numbers from social media to review:


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> I haven't read the book but I assume what that gulf means is that the money was being drained out of the company by the guys at the top rather than being reinvested back into the company?
> 
> I can also see why some folks are willing to reevaluate Lorraine Williams a little bit - without the next decade on the graph it's not clear, but it really does look like at the very least her takeover led to TSR surviving for another decade.  Profits holding steady while revenue is increasing at a huge rate is one type of mismanagement, but having your profits go _down_ while your revenue is going up is either just next level incompetence or highly competent legal theft from the company.  (And geez if TSR had collapsed in 1987 instead of 1997 would there have been anyone to buy it?)



Oh, we know from several documented studies now that TSR was spending money on drugs and vacation lodges, funding the Blumes and Gugax extended families via gift and financing Gygaxes sordid adventures in Hollywood.

It was a mess.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2022)

I do feel that those figures should include the full core set, which means the MM.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I do feel that those figures should include the full core set, which means the MM.



@Benjamin Olson  put a poll on Twotter for which factoids he will come to on Monday, and the choice is comparing Monster Manuals or Setting products. Looks like Settings are winning so fsr.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> I haven't read the book but I assume what that gulf means is that the money was being drained out of the company by the guys at the top rather than being reinvested back into the company?



It wasn't being drained in the embezzlement sense, it was being thrown away on terrible ideas, from EGG's Hollywood dreams to massive overstaffing. Not to mention the aforementioned raising wrecks from the bottom of the lake and trying to get into the craft space.

Williams was a crafty business person. That's obvious. She wouldn't have been able to orchestrate the takeover otherwise.  But she was no friend of D&D and certainly no friend of gamers, who she despised. Gygax and the Blumes were terrible business people, for sure, but I don't believe for a second that there weren't others out there that wouldn't have also "saved D&D" if Williams had declined.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's hard to say from a few angles: the Starter Set is not exactly equivalent to the Basic Set, and they have had the rules inside free online for 8 years.
> 
> The one big number I know of recently is that Beyond has 10 million active users, which probably tells the story better than any individual product sales.




 Yeah for all we know Beyond is making serious bank. 

 Maybe Basic had outsold 5E but it still doesn't mean WorC is lying as they've had consistent sales. 

 Even if their adventure two books sell 50-100 that's more than every other adventure ever with the exception of a few Gary adventures. Year in year out golden age peaked and burnt out. 
.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> No need to work from memory, we have fresh numbers for 2E in comparison available:
> 
> No need to rely on memory, we have fresh numbers from social media to review:
> 
> View attachment 253032View attachment 253031View attachment 253030




 I was wondering how my memory holds up and if those numbers were even in the ballpark.

 Danceys claim 280k year 1 seems to check out he might be marginally off. 

 Looks like 2E got around 500k plus more with the 1995 black books. Graphs a bit hard to read. 

 But yeah looks like Paizos numbers are in the ballpark as well.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 9, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah for all we know Beyond is making serious bank.



They are the ones that got purchased. Their numbers must be good, but they can't be better than a tenth of WotC's, probably far less.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> They are the ones that got purchased. Their numbers must be good, but they can't be better than a tenth of WotC's, probably far less.




 Well available figures are they sold more. 

 I have no doubt WotC is better run so yeah sales and profit are two different things. 

 People like pointing out Amazon sales but an ex Amazon employee posted years ago were 5E you can get that position on around 100 books a day (35k).

 Amazon's only one point of sales as well. And there's estimates of the RPG market size as well. 

 I suspect 5E sales are lower than a lot of people assume. But even that lower number is still higher than every other edition of D&D with Basic being the exception.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2022)

This is blowing my mind...not at all what I expected.  I know beggars can't be choosers, and the data probably doesn't exist for each separate version of 'Basic' Dungeons & Dragons (Mondvay, Holmes, and Rules Cyclopedia) but I would really love to see it if it does.

A while ago at the beginning of the pandemic lockdown, I was missing my friends and feeling all nostalgic about D&D.  I decided to do a series of survey threads about each edition of D&D: I went through each edition of the game one by one, asking people if they'd played them and what they thought of them.  And the results:



(full results *here**, *as of January 2021)

From each of the individual surveys, it looks like AD&D 1E was ENWorld's clear favorite of the TSR-era.  But if we combine both the Holmes and Moldvay sets and the Rules Cyclopedia into a single category called "Basic," which seems to be what was done with the sales graphs upthread, we get a different picture:
149 -- I played one or more of them, and I remember liking them​20 -- I played one or more of them, and I wasn't impressed one way or another​7 -- I played one or more of them, and I didn't really like them​24 -- I'm playing one or more of them right now and so far, I like them​1  -- I'm playing one or more of  them right now; I'll have to let you know later​1 -- I'm playing one or more of  them right now and so far, I don't like them​29 -- I never played one or more of these editions, but I'd like to​16 -- I never played one or more of these edition, or even considered it tbh​14 -- I never played one or more of these editions, and I don't really want to​
Doing this, Basic would beat out all other contenders, even 3rd Edition.  Which...seems to match the graphs above.

Wild.

EDIT:  Yikes, that survey summary is out of date.  Looks like there's been a lot of activity in the 18 months since I last checked them.  I'll see about updating it later this weekend.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 9, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> This is blowing my mind...not at all what I expected.  I know beggars can't be choosers, and the data probably doesn't exist for each separate version of 'Basic' Dungeons & Dragons (Mondvay, Holmes, and Rules Cyclopedia) but I would really love to see it if it does.
> 
> A while ago at the beginning of the pandemic lockdown, I was missing my friends and feeling all nostalgic about D&D.  I decided to do a series of survey threads about each edition of D&D: I went through each edition of the game one by one, asking people if they'd played them and what they thought of them.  And the results:
> View attachment 253037
> ...




 You can take some pretty good guesses what version of basic is selling. 81/82 Modvay, 83 probably red box 91 black box and maybe RC. 

 Black box by itself has outsold everything except 1E/2E other Basic versions and 5E.


----------



## Jer (Jul 9, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Doing this, Basic would beat out all other contenders, even 3rd Edition.  Which...seems to match the graphs above.
> 
> Wild.



You probably have multiple votes from the same person tallied in there though.  Folks who voted for all three of them getting triple counted.

But if it turns out to be true that Basic was their biggest seller I wouldn't actually be all that surprised. There would have been a lot of people who got a Basic set as a gift or to check it out who never got further than that, and then there would be the folks who went from Basic to either Expert or to Advanced. And a lot of those folks would have gone on to Advanced, so they're in both groups.  That means that Basic was working as TSR hoped it would when Holmes wrote his first set of Basic rules - as a lead in to teach people to play the game so they'll buy more D&D.  (That after Holmes Basic TSR lost the plot on that angle and made D&D and AD&D two separate game lines and yet Basic _still _worked that way is a testament to _what a good idea the Basic Set was in the first place_.  And makes it even more shocking that so few game companies even try to do something similar.)


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> You probably have multiple votes from the same person tallied in there though.  Folks who voted for all three of them getting triple counted.



This is possible.  But it's also possible that people who bought the B/X set also bought the Rules Cyclopedia (I know that I did).

For what it's worth, my surveys were set up to record the names of the voters.  So if you're curious about any overlap, you can see who voted for which editions.


----------



## Jer (Jul 9, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> This is possible.  But it's also possible that people who bought the B/X set also bought the Rules Cyclopedia (I know that I did).



Good point - especially because I bought Moldvay Basic, Mentzer Basic, and the RC.  So TSR got my money three times and I guess I should be triple counted.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> Good point - especially because I bought Moldvay Basic, Mentzer Basic, and the RC.  So TSR got my money three times and I guess I should be triple counted.



If everyone bought triple copies, does it mean that only 200,000 people bought the basic sets? Boy were they rough on their books. No wonder they had to buy three....

Come to think of it...  I own two... Doh!


----------



## darjr (Jul 9, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> If everyone bought triple copies, does it mean that only 200,000 people bought the basic sets? Boy were they rough on their books. No wonder they had to buy three....
> 
> Come to think of it...  I own two... Doh!



new? No. We thrashed our books but also migrated to 1st ed AD&D. Also didn't buy the Red Box nor any other D&D starter box until the 3.0 and 3.5 ones I bought to get my kids involved.


----------



## Jer (Jul 9, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> If everyone bought triple copies, does it mean that only 200,000 people bought the basic sets? Boy were they rough on their books. No wonder they had to buy three....
> 
> Come to think of it...  I own two... Doh!



Oh I _own_ more than 3.  But I only paid TSR for 3 (2 really - the first was a gift).

Finding cheap used copies of the Rules Cyclopedia in the early 00s was too good to pass up, even if I couldn't actually find anyone who wanted to play it.

(For me personally BECMI D&D will be my favorite D&D because it's so nostalgic.  But unless I find other 50 year old grognards who grew up with BECMI instead of 1e I probably won't ever be able to actually run it again.  Even my long term gaming group who are my age won't play any version of D&D older than 4e at this point.  I've also tried with my 14 year old who loves 5e and it's tough to convince them that it's even the same game.  But it was fun to see their reaction to the different XP tables for each class and race-as-class mechanics.  One of these days I'm going to run them through a Palladium game and see if I can blow their mind even more)


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> For me personally BECMI D&D will be my favorite D&D because it's so nostalgic.  But unless I find other 50 year old grognards who grew up with BECMI instead of 1e I probably won't ever be able to actually run it again.




Roll20 is your friend.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> Oh I _own_ more than 3.  But I only paid TSR for 3 (2 really - the first was a gift).
> 
> Finding cheap used copies of the Rules Cyclopedia in the early 00s was too good to pass up, even if I couldn't actually find anyone who wanted to play it.
> 
> (For me personally BECMI D&D will be my favorite D&D because it's so nostalgic.  But unless I find other 50 year old grognards who grew up with BECMI instead of 1e I probably won't ever be able to actually run it again.  Even my long term gaming group who are my age won't play any version of D&D older than 4e at this point.  I've also tried with my 14 year old who loves 5e and it's tough to convince them that it's even the same game.  But it was fun to see their reaction to the different XP tables for each class and race-as-class mechanics.  One of these days I'm going to run them through a Palladium game and see if I can blow their mind even more)



Palladium,  my second favorite game. Robotech, RIFTS, Beyond the Supernatural and the only Hero type game where everything was toned perfectly. Nightbane (Nightspawn until the lawsuit) was quite a fun game too.


----------



## wicked cool (Jul 9, 2022)

For awhile all editions were sold at toy stores such as toysrus. Once it moved mostly to book stores and most hobby shops (northeast America most hobby shops were hobbytown etc where it was model cars d&d etc ) I think that’s when basic mostly died. I was glad when thaco went away


----------



## Reynard (Jul 9, 2022)

wicked cool said:


> . I was glad when thaco went away



You mean 2000, over 10 years later?


----------



## wicked cool (Jul 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> You mean 2000, over 10 years later?



Yes. It was a slow process but as editions changed it changed for the better


----------



## Ramicus (Jul 10, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Outsold it by a lot.
> 
> From memory.
> 1E phb 1 million
> ...



Interesting nugget in here. Seems even in the 80s, interest in playing higher level PCs just didn't stick... even in BECMI! Companion covered levels 15-25...


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 10, 2022)

Ramicus said:


> Interesting nugget in here. Seems even in the 80s, interest in playing higher level PCs just didn't stick... even in BECMI! Companion covered levels 15-25...




 Nope I noticed that I. 90's while being new to d&d. Almost never made it to high level the few times we did it was fairly Monty haul/munchkin. 

 Most of the big selling adventures were level 1-8. Think the Drow ones may be the exception.

 CMI not doing that well relative to B/X has been known about for a while.

 Think Mentzer said if he redid BECMI again it would be 1-20.

 B/X had the right idea anyway.

 If one leveled at the expected rates you might hit level 36 sometime in the late 90's if you started 83-85.

 Becoming an immortal legit 2035ish (level 1-36 4 times over).


----------



## Reynard (Jul 10, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> .Becoming an immortal legit 2035ish (level 1-36 4 times over).



That was only one route to immortality.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 10, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That was only one route to immortality.




 It's been a while (27ish years,)


----------



## Michael Dean1 (Jul 10, 2022)

I have very little memory of how B/X was sold back in the early 80s.  Was it primarily (or only) in the boxed sets? Was there any other form that it was sold in, rulebook-wise?  I'm frankly stunned by the sales numbers compared with AD&D, because AD&D was probably 90% of what I remember seeing on hobby shelves during that time, both 1e and 2e.  Apparently, there must have been a line in the back of the store of customers waiting to buy B/X every time I was there and didn't notice, ha ha.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 10, 2022)

Michael Dean1 said:


> I have very little memory of how B/X was sold back in the early 80s.  Was it primarily (or only) in the boxed sets? Was there any other form that it was sold in, rulebook-wise?  I'm frankly stunned by the sales numbers compared with AD&D, because AD&D was probably 90% of what I remember seeing on hobby shelves during that time, both 1e and 2e.  Apparently, there must have been a line in the back of the store of customers waiting to buy B/X every time I was there and didn't notice, ha ha.




 Perspective a couple of thousand stores selling 1 copy a day 5 days a week is 520k a year. In a country of 200+ million.


----------



## Michael Dean1 (Jul 10, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Perspective a couple of thousand stores selling 1 copy a day 5 days a week is 520k a year. In a country of 200+ million.



True.  I guess my surprise is the sales as compared to AD&D, which always seemed to dominate in presence, especially in Dragon magazine, which was probably one of the biggest communal experiences for players in the age before the internet.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 10, 2022)

Michael Dean1 said:


> True.  I guess my surprise is the sales as compared to AD&D, which always seemed to dominate in presence, especially in Dragon magazine, which was probably one of the biggest communal experiences for players in the age before the internet.



I suspect you and I both have a kind of unconscious selection bias on this. We're the ones who really got into the game after discovering it, so the people we hung out with tended also to be gonzo over D&D, right? In that group, AD&D naturally dominated and was considered "more serious" than Basic. But we weren't even interacting much with all those casual players who picked up the red box Moldvay set, let's say, goofed around with it, and then went and did something else fun with their time.

Might it be as simple as that?


----------



## Reynard (Jul 10, 2022)

Michael Dean1 said:


> True.  I guess my surprise is the sales as compared to AD&D, which always seemed to dominate in presence, especially in Dragon magazine, which was probably one of the biggest communal experiences for players in the age before the internet.



I think it actually helps explain the crash. It is evidence that a lot of people who tried the game or were introduced to it by way of Basic did not stay with the hobby or "progress" to AD&D.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 11, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Ah, thank you.  I knew the name sounded familiar...something about the graph gave me the impression that it was an internal TSR thing.
> 
> EDIT:  Dang.  It looks like that tragic story really was the launching pad for D&D.  Sales quadrupled in just one year.











						The Missing Teen Who Fueled 'Cult Panic' Over Dungeons & Dragons
					

When a college student vanished, one overzealous detective convinced the press that he might have been been trapped in a series of tunnels by fellow gamers.




					www.wired.com


----------



## Jer (Jul 11, 2022)

Michael Dean1 said:


> True.  I guess my surprise is the sales as compared to AD&D, which always seemed to dominate in presence, especially in Dragon magazine, which was probably one of the biggest communal experiences for players in the age before the internet.



The thing to keep in mind that for most games (and I mean games in general here) there's always a divide between the casual player who enjoys the game and the hardcore player who really gets into it.  Settlers of Catan is huge in the board game world, but how many households own all of the expansions and how many just own Catan and it sits on the same shelf as their Monopoly, Clue and Scrabble games and they'll pull it out for family game night or when friends come over? (And even with Scrabble - there's the players who will play those games as a social activity, and then there are the players who will compete in tournaments. Almost every game has their hard core - I'd say kids games like CandyLand are the exception but who knows? Someone would probably point me at a Battle Royale CandyLand tournament where the players play to the death or something).

So when we're looking at these numbers we're looking at the "core" books - which from what we know are where the bulk of the sales were.  But what we're not seeing is the long tail of purchases from the hard core folks in the game. Despite my love for BECMI I would be willing to bet that if we look at annual sales of AD&D branded supplements and compared them to D&D branded supplements, the AD&D group would be selling more units per product than the D&D ones[*]. Because I will bet there are more sales of just a Basic Set and then no further purchases than there were sales of a PHB and then no further purchases, meaning that there were more of the hard core gaming folks who would spend money on the game beyond their initial purchase in the AD&D group than in the D&D group.

[*] I'd be willing to be this because, despite TSR being just horribly mismanaged, if it's the case that both the D&D boxed sets were outselling AD&D books and D&D supplements were also outselling AD&D supplements then their management practices move from being just simple mismanagement and into utterly incomprehensible nonsense out of a Lovecraft novel written for accountants. It would require some real non-Euclidean accounting to justify it.


----------



## darjr (Jul 11, 2022)

Ben just might have the numbers for you then.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 11, 2022)

Jer said:


> So when we're looking at these numbers we're looking at the "core" books - which from what we know are where the bulk of the sales were.  But what we're not seeing is the long tail of purchases from the hard core folks in the game. Despite my love for BECMI I would be willing to bet that if we look at annual sales of AD&D branded supplements and compared them to D&D branded supplements, the AD&D group would be selling more units per product than the D&D ones[*]. Because I will bet there are more sales of just a Basic Set and then no further purchases than there were sales of a PHB and then no further purchases, meaning that there were more of the hard core gaming folks who would spend money on the game beyond their initial purchase in the AD&D group than in the D&D group.
> 
> [*] I'd be willing to be this because, despite TSR being just horribly mismanaged, if it's the case that both the D&D boxed sets were outselling AD&D books and D&D supplements were also outselling AD&D supplements then their management practices move from being just simple mismanagement and into utterly incomprehensible nonsense out of a Lovecraft novel written for accountants. It would require some real non-Euclidean accounting to justify it.



They still owed a percentage to Dave Arneson on the whole D&D line (as opposed to AD&D) though, right?  If so, that cuts into their profits on that line and incentivizes them to keep pushing AD&D even if it wasn't a clear sales favorite over D&D.  I know a lot of us dedicated players started out with D&D and then transitioned to the "real game" AD&D.  I wonder how much TSR deliberately cultivated that phenomenon.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 11, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> They still owed a percentage to Dave Arneson on the whole D&D line (as opposed to AD&D) though, right?  If so, that cuts into their profits on that line and incentivizes them to keep pushing AD&D even if it wasn't a clear sales favorite over D&D.  I know a lot of us dedicated players started out with D&D and then transitioned to the "real game" AD&D.  I wonder how much TSR deliberately cultivated that phenomenon.



I am pretty sure that was over. Didn't they settle with an expiration date? The dates are fuzzy from the Game Wizards because I listened to it.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 11, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I am pretty sure that was over. Didn't they settle with an expiration date? The dates are fuzzy from the Game Wizards because I listened to it.



I'd have to go back and look.  I'm not certain and might be misremembering.


----------



## Jer (Jul 11, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> They still owed a percentage to Dave Arneson on the whole D&D line (as opposed to AD&D) though, right?



That's my understanding - IIRC the lawsuit settlement in '81 declared that Arneson got royalties on the AD&D core books, but I think it was just the core books (bolstered by the fact that Arneson sued for royalties on the Monster Manual 2 because he thought it should be considered a core book and TSR thought since it only contained new material that he'd never been involved with it shouldn't - IIRC the court agreed with Arneson).

So it's possible that even if the D&D books sold better, they'd want to push AD&D anyway since they didn't have to pay out as much on supplemental material on it.



Reynard said:


> I am pretty sure that was over. Didn't they settle with an expiration date? The dates are fuzzy from the Game Wizards because I listened to it.



No - they stopped publishing D&D and only published AD&D so they didn't have to pay Arneson royalties anymore.  I believe it was Jim Ward who claimed that post-bankruptcy.  Peter Adkinson finally ended the nonsense when he bought TSR's assets and bought Arneson's ownership in D&D in exchange for a large check.  (I'm also unclear if they just "decided" that 2e AD&D was a different game and stopped paying Arneson on his court-ordered AD&D royalties then or if the AD&D side had an expiration date or if they actually kept paying him on core books until they went bankrupt.  Only the last of those choices would surprise me tbh.)


----------



## Reynard (Jul 11, 2022)

Jer said:


> That's my understanding - IIRC the lawsuit settlement in '81 declared that Arneson got royalties on the AD&D core books, but I think it was just the core books (bolstered by the fact that Arneson sued for royalties on the Monster Manual 2 because he thought it should be considered a core book and TSR thought since it only contained new material that he'd never been involved with it shouldn't - IIRC the court agreed with Arneson).
> 
> So it's possible that even if the D&D books sold better, they'd want to push AD&D anyway since they didn't have to pay out as much on supplemental material on it.
> 
> ...



They published Basic D&D well into the 1990s.


----------



## Jer (Jul 11, 2022)

Reynard said:


> They published Basic D&D well into the 1990s.



They cancelled the D&D line 1995 completely.  IIRC Ward claimed after Wizards bought TSR's assets that that final cancellation was due to TSR finally deciding that they were done paying Arneson royalties on their products.

Looking at these numbers now though it might very well be that TSR decided that they couldn't _afford_ to pay Arneson royalties.  It was only 2 years after the cancellation of the D&D line that they had to declare bankruptcy.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 11, 2022)

Jer said:


> They cancelled the D&D line 1995 completely.  IIRC Ward claimed after Wizards bought TSR's assets that that final cancellation was due to TSR finally deciding that they were done paying Arneson royalties on their products.



I think halfway counts as "well into" but there's no accounting for idioms.


Jer said:


> Looking at these numbers now though it might very well be that TSR decided that they couldn't _afford_ to pay Arneson royalties.  It was only 2 years after the cancellation of the D&D line that they had to declare bankruptcy.



I will have to look it up. I was sure some deal expired by 1986, but maybe there was another case after that?


----------



## Jer (Jul 11, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think halfway counts as "well into" but there's no accounting for idioms.



Sure, but if they cancelled it to stop paying him royalties it doesn't really matter when they cancelled the line (except for him, and when he stopped getting checks of course).



Reynard said:


> I will have to look it up. I was sure some deal expired by 1986, but maybe there was another case after that?



Maybe it was the AD&D one specifically?  The D&D royalties were contractual and weren't part of a lawsuit, the AD&D ones would have been court ordered.  Maybe they had a deadline?


----------



## Reynard (Jul 11, 2022)

Jer said:


> Sure, but if they cancelled it to stop paying him royalties it doesn't really matter when they cancelled the line (except for him, and when he stopped getting checks of course).
> 
> 
> Maybe it was the AD&D one specifically?  The D&D royalties were contractual and weren't part of a lawsuit, the AD&D ones would have been court ordered.  Maybe they had a deadline?



Maybe. like I said, I listened to The Game Wizards which makes it a lot harder to just look up the part I was thinking of.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 11, 2022)

Jer said:


> [*] I'd be willing to be this because, despite TSR being just horribly mismanaged, if it's the case that both the D&D boxed sets were outselling AD&D books and D&D supplements were also outselling AD&D supplements then their management practices move from being just simple mismanagement and into utterly incomprehensible nonsense out of a Lovecraft novel written for accountants. It would require some real non-Euclidean accounting to justify it.



From what former TSR staffers have said...the finance side never gave game design sales number feedback, and just let them make whatever. They literally did not make decisions based on what was seelling.


----------



## Jer (Jul 11, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> From what former TSR staffers have said...the finance side never gave game design sales number feedback, and just let them make whatever. They literally did not make decisions based on what was seelling.



You're right - I forgot about that.

I suspect the Random House Ponzi scheme they were running distorted the space-time of their finances.  If you need to ship books to get money to pay back the money you were advanced on books that have been returned, you can probably make yourself think it doesn't matter what gets published so long as it gets you advance money.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Jul 11, 2022)

Sidebar: Has anyone listened to the "When we were Wizards" podcast?








						When We Were Wizards
					

Check out this great listen on Audible.com. WHEN WE WERE WIZARDS charts the rise and fall of Gary Gygax, the co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons and co-founder of TSR, the company that published it. Despite its enduring popularity, few fans know the true story of ambition, disillusionment, rancor...




					www.audible.com


----------



## darjr (Jul 11, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> Sidebar: Has anyone listened to the "When we were Wizards" podcast?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, but I just subscribed.


----------



## Mezuka (Jul 15, 2022)

Do we have numbers for the sales of AD&D 2e three core books?


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> Do we have numbers for the sales of AD&D 2e three core books?



PHB and DMG - Monstrous Compendium wasn't posted.

There's a link to them in the original post that @darjr shared.  D&D General - TSR D&D sales numbers compiled by Benjamin Riggs


----------



## MGibster (Jul 15, 2022)

Jer said:


> I suspect the Random House Ponzi scheme they were running distorted the space-time of their finances. If you need to ship books to get money to pay back the money you were advanced on books that have been returned, you can probably make yourself think it doesn't matter what gets published so long as it gets you advance money.



A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud and is illegal.  TSR's failure in regards to their relationship with Random House wasn't illegal nor was it unethical, but the business failed because of a series of bad business decisions made possible by that relationsip.  Lorraine Williams gets enough blame for for the failure of TSR, which is deserved I think, but she didn't engage in fraud.


----------



## Jer (Jul 15, 2022)

MGibster said:


> A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud and is illegal.  TSR's failure in regards to their relationship with Random House wasn't illegal nor was it unethical, but the business failed because of a series of bad business decisions made possible by that relationsip.  Lorraine Williams gets enough blame for for the failure of TSR, which is deserved I think, but she didn't engage in fraud.



Ponzi is I guess the wrong word - they were cranking out product to get an advance from Random House in year X+1 to pay back Random House for the advance Random House gave then in year X.  What kind of scheme is it when you borrow money from one person to pay back another person you owe and then keep repeating that cycle until it collapses? Cause it's that, except that the two creditors were the same individual in this case.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 15, 2022)

Jer said:


> Ponzi is I guess the wrong word - they were cranking out product to get an advance from Random House in year X+1 to pay back Random House for the advance Random House gave then in year X. What kind of scheme is it when you borrow money from one person to pay back another person you owe and then keep repeating that cycle until it collapses? Cause it's that, except that the two creditors were the same individual in this case.



I won't argue that it wasn't a scheme, only that Williams didn't engage in fraud.  The bad business decision was the assumption that sales would continue to be gang busters for TSR.  As long as they were selling, their arrangement with Random House wasn't going to bite them in the butt.  Plus there were a myriad of other bad business decisions including alienating their fiction writers and some of their business partners including both Random House and DC Comics.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Jul 15, 2022)

Really, my personal view of Williams as a "crooked businessperson" stems almost entirely from the unprofitable Buck Rogers license which TSR pumped money into long after it was clear it wasn't going to work, which IMO was only pursued because it lined Williams' own pockets as the license holder.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Really, my personal view of Williams as a "crooked businessperson" stems almost entirely from the unprofitable Buck Rogers license which TSR pumped money into long after it was clear it wasn't going to work, which IMO was only pursued because it lined Williams' own pockets as the license holder.



Yeah.  Snarf has pointed out that this kind of self-dealing is actually pretty normal and accepted in closely-held companies, but there's still an issue if the amount they were paying for the Buck Rogers license was genuinely above the plausible market value.  And certainly that appears to be the case, given the apparent total failure of the line.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 18, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Yeah.  Snarf has pointed out that this kind of self-dealing is actually pretty normal and accepted in closely-held companies, but there's still an issue if the amount they were paying for the Buck Rogers license was genuinely above the plausible market value.  And certainly that appears to be the case, given the apparent total failure of the line.




Even that is unclear. After all, they had put money into, inter alia, Lankhmar (a very old Leiber series), Rocky and Bullwinkle, The Hunt for Red October, Escape from New York, and so on. Even the Marvel license is only something that in retrospect was an awesome idea (and I'm guessing that the sales don't support it at the time).

Yeah, we laugh at Buck Rogers now and it's mostly forgotten ... but it was an actual science fiction TV show that aired- and was popular internationally and continued to be aired in syndication in the early 80s. And TSR wasn't the only company that licensed the IP. 

It's impossible to determine without knowing what was paid; but given the failure of almost every thing they did that wasn't D&D, I don't think that saying that it was a failure should be held against it. I think the bigger failure was that TSR floundered after the initial early-80s boom. While Williams managed to retrench it financially and save it at that time, it continued acting like the TTRPG market was bigger than it actually was. 

I'm more curious with this new book if it explores the finances from the book (non-game) side in the late 80s and early 90s.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

It's interesting that somehow both the 1988 TSR board game and 1990 RPG get overlooked in the wiki entry for the 1979-1981 TV show.








						Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




My recollection is that the Marvel Superheros RPG did pretty well.  Well enough that it got re-released in an advanced/expanded form (which I much preferred to the basic set, as a kid), and got a good amount of supplement support.

I would certainly love to see sales numbers for all of the various licensed products.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Even that is unclear. After all, they had put money into, inter alia, Lankhmar (a very old Leiber series), Rocky and Bullwinkle, The Hunt for Red October, Escape from New York, and so on. Even the Marvel license is only something that in retrospect was an awesome idea (and I'm guessing that the sales don't support it at the time).
> 
> Yeah, we laugh at Buck Rogers now and it's mostly forgotten ... but it was an actual science fiction TV show that aired- and was popular internationally and continued to be aired in syndication in the early 80s. And TSR wasn't the only company that licensed the IP.
> 
> ...



I think you can.

They didn’t initially license the TV show so the game looked or played nothing like it. They scrapped Starfrontiers that, from what I know, was selling. And they kept releasing supplements, even though ut must have been clear, even to TSR that it was a failure.

Edit: minor note, was the tv show out for the first run of buck rogers? It might be I saw it inky after the show was started.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

darjr said:


> I think you can.
> 
> They didn’t license the TV show so the game looked or played nothing like it. They scrapped Starfrontiers that, from what I know, was selling. And they kept releasing supplements, even though ut must have been clear, even to TSR that it was a failure.



I really wonder how that 1988 board game did.  If it genuinely sold well, then the case for the 1990 RPG is much stronger.


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I really wonder how that 1988 board game did.  If it genuinely sold well, then the case for the 1990 RPG is much stronger.



Good point.

I will say that if I had a personal family IP and I thought it was good and cool, I’d want to make products on it as well. I think it’s somewhat unfair some of the criticism gave.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 18, 2022)

darjr said:


> I think you can.
> 
> They didn’t initially license the TV show so the game looked or played nothing like it. *They scrapped Starfrontiers that, from what I know, was selling. *And they kept releasing supplements, even though ut must have been clear, even to TSR that it was a failure.
> 
> Edit: minor note, was the tv show out for the first run of buck rogers? It might be I saw it inky after the show was started.




Hey- I love Star Frontiers as much (if not more!) than the next person.

One thing I think has been valuable about the latest release of sales information has been how little we did know about what really sold. As a general rule, if it was released in the early 80s, it sold well. And if it was released after that? Not so well.

Star Frontiers was released in 1982. 
Knight Hawks was 1983.
Zebulons was released in 1985, which effectively ended Star Frontiers. 

_It was a nice three year run. _


----------



## darjr (Jul 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Hey- I love Star Frontiers as much (if not more!) than the next person.
> 
> One thing I think has been valuable about the latest release of sales information has been how little we did know about what really sold. As a general rule, if it was released in the early 80s, it sold well. And if it was released after that? Not so well.
> 
> ...



Could be, and I do want to see those sales. But I do have reason to believe that Zebulons sold better than Buck Rogers. And have been told that the line had more planned and was killed because of Buck Rogers.

Edit: changed know to “have been told” cause I do not “know”, I wasn’t there.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Hey- I love Star Frontiers as much (if not more!) than the next person.
> 
> One thing I think has been valuable about the latest release of sales information has been how little we did know about what really sold. As a general rule, if it was released in the early 80s, it sold well. And if it was released after that? Not so well.
> 
> ...



I am constantly shocked at how short the lives of some setting, editions and RPGs were. In my head many of these things lasted decades, but most were around for a couple years at best.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 18, 2022)

Jer said:


> Ponzi is I guess the wrong word - they were cranking out product to get an advance from Random House in year X+1 to pay back Random House for the advance Random House gave then in year X.  What kind of scheme is it when you borrow money from one person to pay back another person you owe and then keep repeating that cycle until it collapses? Cause it's that, except that the two creditors were the same individual in this case.




So on this, there is a reason for the famous phrase-

"How did you go bankrupt?"
"Slowly, then all at once."

People usually are not in business because they are _pessimists _(well, I mean ... maybe the insurance business). They expect to succeed! That's why most business failures are sudden and unexpected from the outside* ... because they keep the plates spinning, assuming conditions will change, until they can't ... and then everything crashes.

It's no different here. This wasn't a scheme. This was .... business. Company needs revenue (to pay people, to keep the lights on, to make more products). Company has debt to other company. Company pumps out product in order to get revenue. Company assumes that this product will turn things around! But it doesn't.

Situation worsens, rinse, repeat. Again, Random House is a business- they aren't idiots. They entered into the contract knowingly. They knew the situation. In fact, that's why eventually RH put a stop to it.

It wasn't a Ponzi scheme. It wasn't even a scheme. It was a business trying to stay afloat ... and failing. Happens all the time.



*As in, the company appears to stagnate ... but the actual demise is swift, sudden, and shocking.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I am constantly shocked at how short the lives of some setting, editions and RPGs were. In my head many of these things lasted decades, but most were around for a couple years at best.



I think our memories are also impacted by the period of time over which we saw these products in stores.

I, personally, never played Star Frontiers, but certainly it continued to exist on old gaming store shelves for years after it went out of print, and I continued to see the ads for it in older issues of Dragon and Marvel comics when I re-read those into the 90s, at least.  

Older game stores, in particular, often were functionally libraries of older game product, hanging around waiting for some gamer to love them.  I always enjoyed browsing the stacks in this sort of store, though I totally understand why people prefer the newer, cleaner, better-lit and friendlier FLGS' we see more of nowadays.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I think our memories are also impacted by the period of time over which we saw these products in stores.
> 
> I, personally, never played Star Frontiers, but certainly it continued to exist on old gaming store shelves for years after it went out of print, and I continued to see the ads for it in older issues of Dragon and Marvel comics when I re-read those into the 90s, at least.
> 
> Older game stores, in particular, often were functionally libraries of older game product, hanging around waiting for some gamer to love them.  I always enjoyed browsing the stacks in this sort of store, though I totally understand why people prefer the newer, cleaner, better-lit and friendlier FLGS' we see more of nowadays.



There is a store in Groton CT called the Citadel that was, for years, essentially a gaming library. They must have bought everything that ever came out, and then sold none of it. Stuff stretching back into the 80s and even later in some cases, and huge amounts of 3.0 OGL era stuff too. I haven't been since the start of the pandemic but at some point I think they must have started selling stuff online because that backstock started to finally disappear.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> There is a store in Groton CT called the Citadel that was, for years, essentially a gaming library. They must have bought everything that ever came out, and then sold none of it. Stuff stretching back into the 80s and even later in some cases, and huge amounts of 3.0 OGL era stuff too. I haven't been since the start of the pandemic but at some point I think they must have started selling stuff online because that backstock started to finally disappear.



They could have also dumped or warehoused some of it.  Here in NH the iconic old store that's been around since 1981 is The Comic Store, in Nashua.  They had a storefront in a strip mall on Main street for many years, and expanded to also have a second location in Manchester (our biggest city).  First a small store on Elm street right downtown, then moved into a much larger strip mall space in the mid 90s. 

In the early 2000s the strip mall in Manchester was sold to a motorcycle dealer, and John (the Comic Store's owner) never opened a new Manchester location, just consolidating everything into his Nashua store and a warehouse, as I understand.  The Nashua store is overstuffed with stock now, cluttering the aisles, but is fun to dig through.  A pretty wondrous mix of new and old.


----------



## darjr (Jul 28, 2022)

D&D General - All Basic set sales, from Ben Riggs.
					

I wanted to see Holmes and the other sets. I’ll add the expert info here when he posts it.  One thing I didn’t know is that the Rule Books for Basic and Expert from the Moldvey sets were sold separately. I would have gotten them if I had known.    Behold! Sales of the Dungeons & Dragons Basic...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## David Howery (Jul 29, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I am constantly shocked at how short the lives of some setting, editions and RPGs were. In my head many of these things lasted decades, but most were around for a couple years at best.



IIRC, the Al Qadim line was specifically designed to run 3 years and no more from the very beginning.  But that was the only one with a preplanned shelf life, I think....


----------



## GreyLord (Jul 30, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> It's interesting that somehow both the 1988 TSR board game and 1990 RPG get overlooked in the wiki entry for the 1979-1981 TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The TV show license and the TSR license were two different things and approached the same IP from two very different approaches.  They were very different vehicles.  They were probably as different from each other as George Lucas's approved EU universe with the novels and such, and Disney's current Star Wars Universe.

Very similar elements in some places, but completely and totally different universes with their own technology, history, and events (at least at the time for Buck Rogers, and currently today for Star Wars).

I thought of another, perhaps, more apt comparison.  It is as different as the Star Fleet Battles Universe (which also had, I think the prime directive D20 RPG) and the Paramount/CBS Star Trek Universe during the 80s-2000s.  Basic foundational ideas are similar, but the universes evolved in very different ways and manners.


----------

