Products per year through the history of D&D

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:59 pm

I'm sure some of you have seen these graphs before, but I thought they were interesting. Most of them are from this old thread on ENWorld.

I like graphs.

Pages of D&D material published per year (spoilered for size)

Books of D&D material published per year

Same as above, but with setting-specific stuff split out

Same as above, but with novels included

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:42 pm

The interesting thing is how batshit crazy they went with the core rules in 3.5 going by sheer page count.

I'm sure these charts don't include the DDI insanity for 4th ed.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:51 pm

These charts also don't have important data, which would be sales.

I do know from our store in 2000 we sold more only core books than we sold of total D&D material in 2003.

-Crissa

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:17 pm

TheFlatline wrote:The interesting thing is how batshit crazy they went with the core rules in 3.5 going by sheer page count.

Not to mention how batshit crazy they went with setting-specific stuff (modules, etc.) in 2E. I mean I knew they put out a lot of settings, but seeing that pictorially is still surprising.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:31 pm

I had no idea that WotC was already owned by Hasbro when 3.0 was first released.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:22 pm

They had no control over production at the time, and 3e had taken a couple years to produce - unlike subsequent products. Not on the timeline is where the founders of Wizards left, Hasbro liquidated their retail presence, and replaced the CEO.

-Crissa

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:27 am

Didn't OD&D and 1e run concurrently for some time?
Are they included together?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:30 am

Yes. Probably not.

They were also printing AD&D and 2e stuff at the same time.

-Crissa

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:44 pm

Blasted wrote:Didn't OD&D and 1e run concurrently for some time?
Are they included together?

In the first graph, maybe not. But in the second graph he just added everything together by publishing year.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:09 pm

Page count also isn't the same as word counts. Books with a lot of pictures or which are physically smaller sizes have more pages for the same amount of actual product. An that's OK. Laudable even.

Paperback Novels are normally in the 300 page range for ~100,000 words. Coffee Table Books are in the 140 page range for ~100,000 words. Putting them in the same pile for counting "pages" is very close to meaningless.

The charts are interesting in a way, but the important data is word counts (how much stuff they actually wrote) and sales (how much they actually sold).

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:36 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Page count also isn't the same as word counts. Books with a lot of pictures or which are physically smaller sizes have more pages for the same amount of actual product. An that's OK. Laudable even.

Paperback Novels are normally in the 300 page range for ~100,000 words. Coffee Table Books are in the 140 page range for ~100,000 words. Putting them in the same pile for counting "pages" is very close to meaningless.

No more meaningless than comparing a book that's 90% filler and 10% good writing with a book that's 10% filler and 90% good writing. So I don't really see how comparing word counts is any more (or less) interesting.

Of course, sales figures would be more interesting, but good luck getting those.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:25 pm

That's true; but he isn't saying the number of words equals good. Just that it's a mark to compare by that doesn't change by switching printers.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:30 pm

hogarth wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Page count also isn't the same as word counts. Books with a lot of pictures or which are physically smaller sizes have more pages for the same amount of actual product. An that's OK. Laudable even.

Paperback Novels are normally in the 300 page range for ~100,000 words. Coffee Table Books are in the 140 page range for ~100,000 words. Putting them in the same pile for counting "pages" is very close to meaningless.
No more meaningless than comparing a book that's 90% filler and 10% good writing with a book that's 10% filler and 90% good writing. So I don't really see how comparing word counts is any more (or less) interesting.

Of course, sales figures would be more interesting, but good luck getting those.

No, page counts is substantially more meaningless. Filler is subjective, wordcounts are not.

More explicitly, in the next few months WotC is moving to physically smaller books. That will drive page counts up but leave content the same. So those graphs would show product as increasing to a degree that is not warranted.

-Username17