PDA

View Full Version : D&D timeline of editions



Tanarii
2017-06-12, 09:38 AM
Time line of editions:
1974 - ?? oD&D (approx 3 years)

1977 - 1989 : 1e (12 years; DMG 1977 - 10 yrs)
1985 - 1989 : UA (aka 1.5) (3 years)

1989 - 2000 : 2e (11 years)
1995 - 2000 : PO S&P/C&T (aka 2.5) (6 years)

2000 - 2008 : 3e (8 years)
2003 - 2008 : 3.5 (5 years)

2008 - 2014 : 4e (6 years)
2010 - 2014 : Essentials (aka 4.5) (4 years)

2014 - ongoing : 5e (approx 3 years)

BtW auguries indicate we're coming up on a '.5' for 5e.

Kantaki
2017-06-12, 09:45 AM
Going by this timeline there's going to be a sixth edition in two or three years tops.
I mean looking at the lifespans of the Editions 5th's should be up soon.

Aliquid
2017-06-12, 10:54 AM
Don't leave out D&D BECMI editions - 1977-1991 (14 years)

There were four releases. I don't know if you would call them editions or not... maybe just major expansions.

VoxRationis
2017-06-12, 11:01 AM
BtW auguries indicate we're coming up on a '.5' for 5e.

"BtW auguries?" What are those?

Tanarii
2017-06-12, 11:36 AM
Don't leave out D&D BECMI editions - 1977-1991 (14 years)

There were four releases. I don't know if you would call them editions or not... maybe just major expansions.
BECMI is the Mentzer set. What you're talking about is usually referred to as 'Classic':
1977 - 1979 : Basic (Holmes*)
1981 - 1982 : B/X (Moldvay / Cook)
1983 - 1991 : BECMI (Mentzer)

Also Rules Cyclopedia (1991) & Wrath of the Immortals (1993). What's weird (and cool) about BECMI is it kept getting TSR product support into the mid-90s.

*From what I've gleaned, Holmes is considered different from the others. My understanding was that at the time, it was considered a launching pad for AD&D, not it's own thing. That's just history to me though. I started in 1985 with BECMI, although I also played a fair amount of AD&D 1e.

obryn
2017-06-12, 11:45 AM
Don't leave out D&D BECMI editions - 1977-1991 (14 years)

There were four releases. I don't know if you would call them editions or not... maybe just major expansions.
Holmes and the other Basic lines have huge differences. Holmes is kind of an evolutionary dead-end, although it was used to test out some changes that would later get rolled into AD&D.

BX and BECMI are incredibly close; BECMI mostly redid some advancement tracks to capture the 1-36 level range thereby further neutering the Thief. RC is just BECMI, compiled and cleaned up a smidge so you have your Weapon Mastery rules when you need them, instead of waiting for the Master set. For most RPGs, which don't make too many changes between editions, this would mean that each was a separate edition. For D&D - where editions imply sweeping changes - they are arguably not.

EccentricCircle
2017-06-12, 12:05 PM
If we extrapolate from this data, then arguably the lifetime of an edition is decreasing at a fairly consistent rate of 2 years per edition +/- 1 year. (14, 12, 11, 8, 6, ?).

Extrapolating forwards 6th edition will come out between 2018 and 2019, followed by 7th edition in 2021, then 8th edition in 2022.

Finally in 2023 the team announcing ninth edition will be interrupted when the teams developing all subsequent versions of D&D burst onto the stage in short succession to pitch their version, before being upstaged by the developers of the next iteration.

We will then have reached the D&D singularity, and the universe will collapse in on itself in a game-filled paradox and be replaced with something much harder to simulate in roleplaying games.

If we were to include retroclones in this analysis then arguably this has already happened...

Cosi
2017-06-12, 12:15 PM
Those end dates seem wrong. Like yeah, that's when the next edition came out, but that's not when books stopped being published (which seems like a better end of life measure). As far as I can tell, the last essentials book (of the five 4e's wiki lists (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_products)) was the Red Box, which was released in 2011. By comparison, 3e's last product was in 2007 (per wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks#Dungeons_.2 6_Dragons_3rd_edition_and_v3.5)).

Tanarii
2017-06-12, 12:16 PM
We will then have reached the D&D singularity, and the universe will collapse in on itself in a game-filled paradox and be replaced with something much harder to simulate in roleplaying games. See, now this is the kind of comment I was fishing for. :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii
2017-06-12, 12:35 PM
Those end dates seem wrong. Like yeah, that's when the next edition came out, but that's not when books stopped being published (which seems like a better end of life measure).My experience is that edition end of life occurs when the next edition is published. In spite of much kicking and screaming* by people who don't want to convert, the majority of the public gaming world adopts the material and switches over in short order.

*kicking and screaming also happens when 1/2 editions are released. I'll be honest, I'm usually one of the kickers and screamers for those.

EccentricCircle
2017-06-12, 02:09 PM
See, now this is the kind of comment I was fishing for. :smallbiggrin:

Happy to oblige!

hamishspence
2017-06-12, 02:17 PM
By comparison, 3e's last product was in 2007 (per wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks#Dungeons_.2 6_Dragons_3rd_edition_and_v3.5)).

If we allow for "official online content", Wizards was doing Dragon Magazine issues with 3.5 content right up until the release of 4e.

2D8HP
2017-06-12, 11:14 PM
Time line of editions:
1974 - ?? oD&D (approx 3 years)

1977 - 1989 : 1e (12 years; DMG 1977 - 10 yrs)
1985 - 1989 : UA (aka 1.5) (3 years)

1989 - 2000 : 2e (11 years)
1995 - 2000 : PO S&P/C&T (aka 2.5) (6 years)

2000 - 2008 : 3e (8 years)
2003 - 2008 : 3.5 (5 years)

2008 - 2014 : 4e (6 years)
2010 - 2014 : Essentials (aka 4.5) (4 years)

2014 - ongoing : 5e (approx 3 years)

BtW auguries indicate we're coming up on a '.5' for 5e.



I can tell you already know (because you shorten it), but the DMG came out in '79 not '77.

Also, TSR slapped a different cover on '91 Basic, and called in "Classic Dungeons & Dragons" in '94.

The Holmes Basic "bluebook" rules were reprinted in '99 as part of the 25 "Silver Anniversary" Set.

Holmes is... not AD&D, or B/X or OD&D, it's sort of all of them and none of them... and it was AWESOME!

If someone wants to easily learn TSR D&D, probably the easiest way would be to pick up '91 "Basic" or '94 "Classic" (same thing), because those are the most clearly written, but if you want to be COOL, then get Holmes, "Basic", OD&D, and AD&D all within 2 years of each other. That's what I did!
:cool:

Also 1.5 was LAME! I'm still boycotting it!
:annoyed:

Kurald Galain
2017-06-13, 06:17 AM
It would be useful to list for each edition when the last book for that edition was published, and not only when the first book for the next edition is published...

Cosi
2017-06-13, 08:32 AM
It would be useful to list for each edition when the last book for that edition was published, and not only when the first book for the next edition is published...

I mentioned this already.

Per wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks#Dungeons_.2 6_Dragons_3rd_edition_and_v3.5), 3e's last release was 2007. There were several books that year, the latest being Elder Evils, released December 2007. The 4e PHB was released in June 2008 (https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook-Roleplaying/dp/0786948671). That's about six months between dead tree releases.

Wikipedia doesn't list 4e stats, but as far as I can tell the last physical 4e release was their Red Box (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Box) set in September 2011. The 5e PHB seems to have released in August 2014 (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/rpg_playershandbook), which gives us a three year gap between last and first dead tree releases -- six times the previous edition. If I may be permitted to editorialize somewhat, this does not reflect well on the design team currently working for WotC.

Wikipedia's list of dates is somewhat sparse for 2e, but it looks like they had at least one book (Campaign Option: Council of Wyrms) release in 1999, which means it was at most a year between the last 2e release and the launch of 3.0.

1e into 2e seems to be roughly the same. 1e's Dungeon Master's Design Kit was 1988, the earliest 2e books seem to be 1989. So about a year.

Half editions (3.5 and Essentials) are less than a year IIRC.

As has been pointed out, these dates get closer together if you count web content or magazines, which trickle out until the official changeover happens.

TL;DR -- Usually, it's a year or less between the last dead tree release of one edition and the first of the next edition. The exception to this is 4e into 5e, which is about a three year gap.

obryn
2017-06-13, 08:50 AM
To add to the list Dragon 430, the last real release for 4e as far as I can tell, was published December 2013.

2D8HP
2017-06-13, 08:53 AM
It would be useful to list for each edition when the last book for that edition was published, and not only when the first book for the next edition is published...

The 1e Adventure "module"

L3 Deep Dwarven Delve - by Len Lakofka (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Dwarven_Delve) was published in 1999 as part of the "Silver Anniversary Set",

and

A0 Danger at Darkshelf Quarry (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/against-slave-lords) was included with the "Against the Slave Lords" reprint in 2013, making it (as far as I know) the last 1e product published by the owners of the Dungeons & Dragons brand.

So 1e is 1977 to 2013.

A win for 1e!

May 5e last as long.

Tanarii
2017-06-13, 09:59 AM
It would be useful to list for each edition when the last book for that edition was published, and not only when the first book for the next edition is published...

As I already said, I don't see much point in that.


My experience is that edition end of life occurs when the next edition is published. In spite of much kicking and screaming* by people who don't want to convert, the majority of the public gaming world adopts the material and switches over in short order.

*kicking and screaming also happens when 1/2 editions are released. I'll be honest, I'm usually one of the kickers and screamers for those.

In other words, the relevant points in the timeline, for both 'end of life' and 'start of life', are the date the new edition is released.

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 10:32 AM
Wikipedia doesn't list 4e stats, but as far as I can tell the last physical 4e release was their Red Box (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Box) set in September 2011. The 5e PHB seems to have released in August 2014 (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/rpg_playershandbook), which gives us a three year gap between last and first dead tree releases -- six times the previous edition. If I may be permitted to editorialize somewhat, this does not reflect well on the design team currently working for WotC.

I think that's more because 4e was bombing and they weren't in a hurry to throw good money after bad.

With how much more successful 5e is than 4e (and more than 3e I believe) I don't think that you can use the last edition or two as a baseline.

Unlike earlier editions, (and earlier owners of D&D) it doesn't seem like Hasbro is in a hurry to really milk the edition with bunches of sourcebooks. (arguably saturating the market) Likely because it's only a tiny part of their business, Hasbro seems happy to let the core 5e books ride and release sporadic modules, cashing in as much on the D&D brand at least as much through board-games & probably video games etc. going forward.

Kurald Galain
2017-06-13, 11:02 AM
cashing in as much on the D&D brand at least as much through board-games & probably video games etc. going forward.

Are any of these known to be in the works?

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 11:10 AM
Are any of these known to be in the works?

Board games? Bunches.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/9547/dungeons-and-dragons-adventure-system-board-games

Video Games? Some.

As a hybrid - they put in Lords of Waterdeep board game on iOS.

There's the Neverwinter MMO. (didn't get very good reviews)

Sword Coast Legends (got bad reviews)

Cosi
2017-06-13, 11:13 AM
I think that's more because 4e was bombing and they weren't in a hurry to throw good money after bad.

The time gap from 4e to 5e was longer than the time gap between 2e and 3e, and the company producing 2e went out of business. Unless you think 4e was worse for the D&D brand than literally going out of business, there isn't really an excuse here.


With how much more successful 5e is than 4e (and more than 3e I believe) I don't think that you can use the last edition or two as a baseline.

I don't think there's any evidence 5e is beating 3e. There are some statements from Mearls about sales, but they have enough weasel words that I am entirely unconvinced they mean anything.


Unlike earlier editions, (and earlier owners of D&D) it doesn't seem like Hasbro is in a hurry to really milk the edition with bunches of sourcebooks. (arguably saturating the market)

I mean, Paizo manages to make money, and they don't even get to call their shovelware Dungeons and Dragons.

2D8HP
2017-06-13, 11:25 AM
....I don't think there's any evidence 5e is beating 3e. There are some statements from Mearls about sales, but they have enough weasel words that I am entirely unconvinced....


As far as I know the biggest selling D&D rules was 83 "Redbox" Basic, followed by the 2000 "3e" PHB.

I've seen many cheap used 3e PHB's for sale over the years (which irks me as I paid full price for mine dagnabbit!), and as far as I know, no one uses it for play anymore, so many switching to 3.5.

So 3e (seperate from 3.5/Pathfinder) AFAIK, had the best selling PHB of all, yet it's orphaned.

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 11:30 AM
I don't think there's any evidence 5e is beating 3e. There are some statements from Mearls about sales, but they have enough weasel words that I am entirely unconvinced they mean anything.


So 3e (seperate from 3.5/Pathfinder) AFAIK, had the best selling PHB of all, yet it's orphaned.

Okay - if you want to assume that Mike Mearls was lying when he said about a year ago "5e lifetime PHB sales > 3, 3.5, 4 lifetime". Now - that was only the PHBs individually - not collectively. But he did confirm that that was numerically rather than by $ (since inflation would help on that front).


I mean, Paizo manages to make money, and they don't even get to call their shovelware Dungeons and Dragons.

I didn't mean that Hasbro COULDN'T make $ by producing more sourcebooks - just that (pretty obviously) they don't seem in a hurry to do so because, unlike TSR & Paizo, they're not a one product line company. WoTC seemed eager to have D&D follow the MtG model.

I don't think Hasbro is as interested in squeezing every bit of profit out of 5e - they have plenty of other things to invest their resources in. Instead they're happy keeping the margin higher. (admittedly - that's purely my hypothesis)


Edit: relevant -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=63843&d=1409783145&stc=1

Cosi
2017-06-13, 11:36 AM
Okay - if you want to assume that Mike Mearls was lying when he said about a year ago "5e lifetime PHB sales > 3, 3.5, 4 lifetime". Now - that was only the PHBs individually - not collectively. But he did confirm that that was numerically rather than by $ (since inflation would help on that front).

My recollection of that claim was that 5e was "on track" to beat 3e. Which is, of course, meaningless because you can fit any data to some track that passes any given fixed point by some point in the future. Until Mearls says "we have sold more 5e books/PHBs/whatever than 3e books/PHBs/whatever" without any meaningful caveats (like "on X platform" or "we expect to"), you should assume that it is not the case.


I don't think Hasbro is as interested in squeezing every bit of profit out of 5e - they have plenty of other things to invest their resources in. Instead they're happy keeping the margin higher. (admittedly - that's purely my hypothesis)

Then what are they paying people for? If you just want to sell the books you have already written, why does Mike Mearls have a job? If all you want to do is sell more PHBs, MMs, and DMGs, you do not need to give him any money.

Kurald Galain
2017-06-13, 11:38 AM
As far as I know the biggest selling D&D rules was 83 "Redbox" Basic, followed by the 2000 "3e" PHB.

That is indeed the case. This graph is from 2015, so 5E and PF have seen additional sales since.

http://s29.postimg.org/a5eb6e2vr/salesgraph.png

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 11:38 AM
Until Mearls says "we have sold more 5e books/PHBs/whatever than 3e books/PHBs/whatever" without any meaningful caveats (like "on X platform" or "we expect to"), you should assume that it is not the case.

He did - last summer. He said that the 5e PHB had sold more than 3e, 3.5, or 4e PHBs (individually - not collectively).



Then what are they paying people for? If you just want to sell the books you have already written, why does Mike Mearls have a job? If all you want to do is sell more PHBs, MMs, and DMGs, you do not need to give him any money.

They're coming out with some new stuff - but they're certainly not churning them out like previous editions were.

Yora
2017-06-13, 11:41 AM
Marketing. Last thing I heard a while back is that there's not actually a D&D development team anymore. Just management that outsources the creation of adventures.

Cosi
2017-06-13, 11:42 AM
I think that bar chart is overinflating BECMI. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set) claims four distinct versions of the Box Set, and even if they are "very similar", you should at least combine 3.0/3.5/maybe PF as well if you're combining them.


He did - last summer. He said that the 5e PHB had sold more than 3e, 3.5, or 4e PHBs (individually - not collectively).

Can you cite the article (or talk or whatever) where he says that without caveats?

2D8HP
2017-06-13, 11:53 AM
He did - last summer. He said that the 5e PHB had sold more than 3e, 3.5, or 4e PHBs (individually - not collectively)....


He did?

:cool:

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 01:18 PM
Can you cite the article (or talk or whatever) where he says that without caveats?


He did?

:cool:

It was just a tweet -

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/764279387520851968

(I can't actually look at it while at work - but an article about it linked to that tweet.)

obryn
2017-06-13, 01:27 PM
I think that bar chart is overinflating BECMI. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set) claims four distinct versions of the Box Set, and even if they are "very similar", you should at least combine 3.0/3.5/maybe PF as well if you're combining them.

D&D in the early 80's had a level of cultural impact that is hard to overstate. The red box was literally everywhere. It was a cultural phenomenon that was almost universally recognizable, and the Red Box was both bought and sold everywhere. No other D&D release comes close.

Were you around for this? Because for real, it was popular and well-known enough to have a popular Saturday morning cartoon.

And, rules-wise, the gap between BX and BECMI (and from there to RC) is mostly one of presentation and branding; there was no serious rules revision done at all, save tweaking a few saving throw tables and thief skills. Mentzer Basic just gave some further illustrations on how to run the game, and split the presentation into two books instead of just one. If this was Call of Cthulhu, you might call that an "edition" but it's D&D, so lol.

It's absurd to think of it in the same light as the various iterations on 3.x, all of which had major and sweeping rules overhauls.

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 01:54 PM
And, rules-wise, the gap between BX and BECMI (and from there to RC) is mostly one of presentation and branding; there was no serious rules revision done at all, save tweaking a few saving throw tables and thief skills. Mentzer Basic just gave some further illustrations on how to run the game, and split the presentation into two books instead of just one. If this was Call of Cthulhu, you might call that an "edition" but it's D&D, so lol.

It's absurd to think of it in the same light as the various iterations on 3.x, all of which had major and sweeping rules overhauls.

So - less of a difference than 3.0 to 3.5? Or 3.5 to Pathfinder?

That is small. (I started RPGs with 3.5 - so not sarcastic.)

obryn
2017-06-13, 02:33 PM
So - less of a difference than 3.0 to 3.5? Or 3.5 to Pathfinder?

That is small. (I started RPGs with 3.5 - so not sarcastic.)
Oh man, it's not even close to that much. Those are all sweeping changes that can make huge differences in play.

I would say that most people could and did switch between Mentzer and Moldvay and never even know if they didn't actually look at the book covers. Like I said, it's mostly one of presentation. Mentzer Basic tries harder to explain the way the game works (by providing things like a choose-your-own-adventure style introduction), but it's still the same rules. Rules Cyclopedia just puts BECM all under one cover, so rules that appeared in later books (like the fantastic Weapon Mastery system from the Master Set) were convenient.

You could say that there were two different full editions of the Immortal part of the rules - the "I" box versus Wrath of the Immortals - but those are very much edge cases, for characters who advanced to Level 36 and then some. They ... did not see much play.

2D8HP
2017-06-13, 02:55 PM
Because I just can't resist bloviating, I'm going to point out that the '91 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Game_(1991_boxed_set)) rules were once known as "Fifth edition", see:

here (http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/17171).

It went:


1974: Arneson/Gygax "Original" (Brown box/White box)

1977: Holmes "Basic" (Bluebook)

1981: Moldvay/Cook "Basic" (B/X)

1983: Mentzer "Basic" (Red box)

1991: Brown/Denning "New Easy to Master" (Black box) - 1994: "Classic" (same as '91, just a different cover).

Out of all of those, the '91/'94 rules really are "Easy to Master" as the editing/English is better, but my favorite is the complete game in just 48 pages Holmes authored 1977 version, which because it was my first FRP, I can't be objective about.

I enjoy the thought of calling OD&D/Holmes 1e, Moldvay 2e, Mentzer 3e, The Rules Cyclopedia 4e, ignoring AD&D and 3e/3.5/4e WotC D&D, and then came Mearls 5e.

But yeah the biggest change I know was between TSR AD&I/D&D and WotC "3e" (was 4e a big change?)

If the 2014 Starter Set somehow had gotten into my hands in 1978?

I would've totally ruled the school yard.

Kurald Galain
2017-06-13, 03:03 PM
(was 4e a big change?)

Are you for real? :smallbiggrin:

obryn
2017-06-13, 03:12 PM
But yeah the biggest change I know was between TSR AD&I/D&D and WotC "3e" (was 4e a big change?)
Since 2e, every major release has had big changes. 3e radically redesigned the class and level structure, implemented a unified roll-high system, changed saving throws, etc. 4e completely rebuilt the engine, though its 3.5 roots are pretty clear, and it was particularly derived from late-era 3.5 releases. Both 3e and 4e are radical departures from the editions just prior.

2e itself was a pretty significant departure from 1e, though still not nearly to the same degree as 3e or 4e were.

5e is basically a re-make of 3e from the ground up, though not as broken out of the box, and with some modern game design tweaks and flat math. It's not really a descendant of 4e.

2D8HP
2017-06-13, 03:20 PM
Are you for real? :smallbiggrin:


I never bought any of the 2e, 3.5 and 4e "corebooks", so I can't be sure.

I bought everything D&D, and AD&D I could from the White box to the Fiend Folio, and then nothing till the 2000 "3e" PHB, skipped most of 3.5, and all of 4e, and then everything from 2014 on, so I've missed lot.

Jay R
2017-06-13, 05:38 PM
So - less of a difference than 3.0 to 3.5? Or 3.5 to Pathfinder?

That is small. (I started RPGs with 3.5 - so not sarcastic.)

3.5 is simply additional rules much more than a change in the basic rules.

In some ways, there is more difference between original D&D and the same game with the first supplement Greyhawk than there is between 3.0 and 3.5. For one thing, after the supplement came out, it had its own combat system.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 05:41 PM
BtW auguries indicate we're coming up on a '.5' for 5e.

Are these auguries pointing to weal, or to woe?

Scots Dragon
2017-06-13, 06:37 PM
Wikipedia's list of dates is somewhat sparse for 2e, but it looks like they had at least one book (Campaign Option: Council of Wyrms) release in 1999, which means it was at most a year between the last 2e release and the launch of 3.0.

The AD&D 2E Forgotten Realms book Cloak and Dagger was released in the June of 2000. The D&D 3.0E books landed in August.

I don't even think it's possible to call that a gap at all.

Tanarii
2017-06-13, 07:49 PM
Are these auguries pointing to weal, or to woe?
Mostly weal. :smallwink:

Seriously though it's just my opinion based on what's been going on with UA recently. I think they're getting ready for something including some rather large new player options at some point. Although not necessarily that soon. It could just be a setting book(s) or a new FR sourcebook(s), of course.

JAL_1138
2017-06-13, 08:18 PM
Mostly weal. :smallwink:

Seriously though it's just my opinion based on what's been going on with UA recently. I think they're getting ready for something including some rather large new player options at some point. Although not necessarily that soon. It could just be a setting book(s) or a new FR sourcebook(s), of course.

Something more sweeping/significant than Xanathar's Guide to Everything's twentysomething extra subclasses, presumably—e.g., a PHB 2 or DMG 2?

Oy, I hope we're not in for another Player's Option series that completely overhauls the combat system and character creation.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 08:28 PM
Mostly weal. :smallwink:

http://i.imgur.com/r69Mt98.jpg


Seriously though it's just my opinion based on what's been going on with UA recently. I think they're getting ready for something including some rather large new player options at some point. Although not necessarily that soon. It could just be a setting book(s) or a new FR sourcebook(s), of course.

I really hope they give us more settings.

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-13, 11:09 PM
I can tell you already know (because you shorten it), but the DMG came out in '79 not '77.

Also, TSR slapped a different cover on '91 Basic, and called in "Classic Dungeons & Dragons" in '94.

The Holmes Basic "bluebook" rules were reprinted in '99 as part of the 25 "Silver Anniversary" Set.

Holmes is... not AD&D, or B/X or OD&D, it's sort of all of them and none of them... and it was AWESOME!

If someone wants to easily learn TSR D&D, probably the easiest way would be to pick up '91 "Basic" or '94 "Classic" (same thing), because those are the most clearly written, but if you want to be COOL, then get Holmes, "Basic", OD&D, and AD&D all within 2 years of each other. That's what I did!
:cool:

Also 1.5 was LAME! I'm still boycotting it!
:annoyed:
It was the MM that came out in 77. Followed by PHB the DMG.

2D8HP
2017-06-14, 12:10 AM
It was the MM that came out in 77. Followed by PHB the DMG.

Yep, with the "Lizardman" logo!

https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/8/8e/TSR_logo_lizardman.gif/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/198/height/250?cb=20130421015401

I was envious of my first DM, and his brother who became my best friend, because they had all the D&D stuff (really just a couple of years) before me.

By thr time I got my Monster Manual (in '79 or '80) it has the stupid "Wizard" logo:

https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/8/83/Tsr_logo_wizard.png/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/218/height/263?cb=20130421015554

..forever marking me as a "Johnny-come-lately" (so I then thought).

I was the only one in our circle to get other AD&D books (the PHB, DMG, Deities & Demi-Gods, and the Fiend Folio) whereas my DM's used "White box" + supplements, with the Monster Manual their only AD&D book.

I on the other hand could not make sense of "Whitebox", even with Chainmail (which I got sometime in the '80's) as I just didn't have the wargame background, and I learned OD&D by folklore rather than reading. This led me to first mistake some third-party stuff that my DM pinched from All the World's Monster's (the "Perrin Conventions") as OD&D! He also used Arduin (another Berkeley, California third-party publication) for his setting, whereas I used TSR's World of Greyhawk.

It was real mix-and-match, but it was great fun.

I never got over thinking that my Basic/AD&D sessions were inferior to the brothers OD&D plus games,, but I had already been a DM (using the Holmes "bluebook") before I sat at their table, which I credit to the "Basic set". I don't think that I would have done it if I'd started with "Whitebox" like them, and I really respect all those who did.

I also respect the DM's who use WotC rules, because frankly the game looks more complex than the 48 pages of rules (and In Search of the Unknown) that I started with.

Which brings me to the (whispered) thread topic: When is 5.5/6e coming, and what's it going to be like?

Well I don't have any prophesies, but I do have a request.

Make DM'ing easier/more inviting.

Out of the seven that were in my first gaming circle, three of us were DM's.

That ratio still seems right to me, but I certainly don't see it today, nor do I have any ideas on how to make it happen again.

Beheld
2017-06-14, 06:15 PM
Okay - if you want to assume that Mike Mearls was lying when he said about a year ago "5e lifetime PHB sales > 3, 3.5, 4 lifetime". Now - that was only the PHBs individually - not collectively. But he did confirm that that was numerically rather than by $ (since inflation would help on that front).

When you buy a 5e PHB, you get a pdf copy with your buy!

Without lying at all, that statement could be technically true if 5e has sold slightly more than half of 3e PHBs, but then doubled that because you also "sold" a pdf for each hard copy sale.

JAL_1138
2017-06-14, 07:37 PM
When you buy a 5e PHB, you get a pdf copy with your buy!

Without lying at all, that statement could be technically true if 5e has sold slightly more than half of 3e PHBs, but then doubled that because you also "sold" a pdf for each hard copy sale.

Except that there are no legal pdfs of the PHB, at all, to my knowledge. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'm unaware of any legal pdfs of the full PHB, even with purchase of a hardback. Closest is the Steam/Fantasy Grounds stuff, and that doesn't come free with a hardcover. So they're not counting non-sales of a nonexistent format.

Scots Dragon
2017-06-14, 07:53 PM
Except that there are no legal pdfs of the PHB, at all, to my knowledge. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'm unaware of any legal pdfs of the full PHB, even with purchase of a hardback. Closest is the Steam/Fantasy Grounds stuff, and that doesn't come free with a hardcover. So they're not counting non-sales of a nonexistent format.

Honestly, I'm inclined to think the current surge in popularity for a Dungeons & Dragons-alike system is genuine, and it's probably largely due to various web series like Critical Role and Adventure Time to varying degrees, because they've done the all-important job of making sure that people know about Dungeons & Dragons. I know a lot of people who didn't start until D&D 5E and started in part due to the popularity of these new web series. It's basically had the best unintentional viral marketing campaign I've ever seen, and it was released at exactly the right moment to take advantage of that.

So you had all these people, mostly younger, seeing these web series that had people playing out their D&D campaigns and they were like 'Oh, that looks cool, I wanna get my friends together and try that out for myself', and oh look what just happened to be released; a brand spanking new Player's Handbook, and one that has some of the most gorgeous artwork and production values. I'd be surprised if D&D 5E wasn't the most popular edition in terms of sales.

And honestly? This is great. The game is more popular now than it's ever been, and we have an entire new and widespread generation who are playing D&D, and it's wonderful. Even if it is really weird to see people referring to tieflings and dragonborn as core races as if that's just something to be expected 'cause you're still mentally used to the older editions and their material.

Thrudd
2017-06-14, 08:00 PM
Honestly, I'm inclined to think the current surge in popularity for a Dungeons & Dragons-alike system is genuine, and it's probably largely due to various web series like Critical Role and Adventure Time to varying degrees, because they've done the all-important job of making sure that people know about Dungeons & Dragons. I know a lot of people who didn't start until D&D 5E and started in part due to the popularity of these new web series. It's basically had the best unintentional viral marketing campaign I've ever seen, and it was released at exactly the right moment to take advantage of that.

So you had all these people, mostly younger, seeing these web series that had people playing out their D&D campaigns and they were like 'Oh, that looks cool, I wanna get my friends together and try that out for myself', and oh look what just happened to be released; a brand spanking new Player's Handbook, and one that has some of the most gorgeous artwork and production values. I'd be surprised if D&D 5E wasn't the most popular edition.

Yep, the social media age may be bringing about a new golden age of role playing popularity. streaming video and audio now lets people see how much fun these games can be, and even girls are willing to give it a try! Case in point, in my last two creative writing classes, two of the compulsory "D&D games-turned fiction" stories came from girls! When I was their age, twenty-ish years ago, such a thing would have been like a rare desert rose - now I don't think it's so surprising.

JAL_1138
2017-06-14, 08:24 PM
Honestly, I'm inclined to think the current surge in popularity for a Dungeons & Dragons-alike system is genuine, and it's probably largely due to various web series like Critical Role and Adventure Time to varying degrees, because they've done the all-important job of making sure that people know about Dungeons & Dragons. I know a lot of people who didn't start until D&D 5E and started in part due to the popularity of these new web series. It's basically had the best unintentional viral marketing campaign I've ever seen, and it was released at exactly the right moment to take advantage of that.

So you had all these people, mostly younger, seeing these web series that had people playing out their D&D campaigns and they were like 'Oh, that looks cool, I wanna get my friends together and try that out for myself', and oh look what just happened to be released; a brand spanking new Player's Handbook, and one that has some of the most gorgeous artwork and production values. I'd be surprised if D&D 5E wasn't the most popular edition in terms of sales.

And honestly? This is great. The game is more popular now than it's ever been, and we have an entire new and widespread generation who are playing D&D, and it's wonderful. Even if it is really weird to see people referring to tieflings and dragonborn as core races as if that's just something to be expected 'cause you're still mentally used to the older editions and their material.

I think I may have been a bit unclear about the "I'd be happy to be wrong" line--I only meant I'd be happy to learn there were legal pdfs getting bundled now, because I'd like to get a legal pdf I could ctrl+F rules in. Strong sales and popularity for the system is a great thing; I'm not bemoaning that at all.

And I agree that the streaming is going viral as heck. Acquisitions Incorporated livestreamed to movie theaters and gave out adventure modules, and people went. To the movies. To see five geeks at a table play D&D live. That's, like, mind-blowing to me, since I grew up in the backwoods of Kentucky in a town where D&D is still considered "the devil's game."

There are Twitch streams people pay real money to subscribe to. I personally can't stand Critical Role (it's the background music; kills it for me, for several idiosyncratic reasons, including some general hearing difficulties and tinnitus. I'd love to watch the show but the background music makes me want to punch my computer) but it's hugely popular. Chris Perkins' own stream, DCA, isn't as popular as Critical Role, but still has legions of fans and new people who've never played D&D before show up in the chat all the time, I'm sure some of them have started playing because of it.

So I don't doubt that sales are strong and the popularity surge is the real deal. As you said, they've lucked into viral marketing at about the perfect time.

Adventurers' League draws in newbies and draws back old grognards, too, at least in my experience. I'm always happy to get newbies at the table, because I want to get them hooked on gaming. Heck, I buy dice for them if they don't already have their own, because I want them to feel welcomed, something geekery in general has some issues with.

Yora
2017-06-15, 02:17 AM
Make DM'ing easier/more inviting.

That's the biggest problem of the RPG market and has always been. The rulebooks only teach mechanics, but almost never explain anything about managing them. All advice about running games comes from seasoned GMs who are writing down their experience in their free time purely out of generosity, and you still have to know where to look for it to have any hope of finding it,
Rulebook writers always assume that all you need to run a game is mechanics, but that's barely even scratching the surface.

Nupo
2017-06-15, 08:09 AM
That's the biggest problem of the RPG market and has always been. The rulebooks only teach mechanics, but almost never explain anything about managing them.The 1e DM Guide had a lot of good information about how to run a game.

Nifft
2017-06-15, 09:43 AM
The 1e DM Guide had a lot of good information about how to run a game.

3.5e DMG2 also has good info, including stuff on figuring out the types of psychological rewards which will work for each of your different players, to help them enjoy the game & find it more rewarding.

IIRC someone said that was an offshoot of the M:tG player analysis work (Timmy/Johnny/Spike), but the RPG players ended up needing more than 3 categories.

wumpus
2017-06-15, 10:09 AM
The 1e DM Guide had a lot of good information about how to run a game.

The 1e guide had a lot of good information about how to run an *adventure*. The 3.xe rulebook (and presumably later editions as well) have some really helpful information on how to get the game mechanics under control (ECL seemed brilliant when I first heard about it). I'd recommend the 1e guide, especially if you weren't planning on using the rules (I strongly suspect you can run a much better 1e game with 5e rules than with 1e rules).