How many people play D&D, and what percentage play various editions?

[Dice4Hire]

This is an interesting question and one Enworld is not well set up to judge. I think the older the edition, the more offline players there are, and that makes them harder to count or even notice. Also, this is one corner, and that also changes how things are viewed.

Foir example, I play games via Yahoogroups, but nearly all of the postings for gamers here are either real-time online play or face to face groups. This is not a good site for Yahoo based gaming. This site is heavier on 3.5 than a lot, I would judge as many many people joined this site during the 3.x era. And indeed this is/has been a 3.5 centric site for a long time.

<Is that enough qualifications yet?>

With all that said, I would guess that the earlier editions (2e and back) are relatively stable numbers of people, however the percentages have changed due to fluctuations in the total number of gamers. 3.x PF and 4E have all fluctuated a lot in the last decade.

Right now

40% 4E
35% 3.5
35% Pathfinder
20% other editions

So 20% or so overlap of people who play different versions.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'd cut it differently. D&D 3.0 is old school in a sense; the users have decided to stay with a decidedly out-dated system. Pathfinder isn't D&D 3.5; its players have decided to take up with a new system and have an investment in it. It's the 3.5 people who are either going to have to go to Pathfinder (or another 3.5± system), move to 4th ed or future editions, or join the old school with the dwindling number of books, no source of legal new copies and the whole curmudgeon feel.

Just a quibble: the bulk of core D&D3.x (and then some) is OGC, is therefore perfectly legal to copy, and will be easily available for the foreseeable future (that's why Pathfinder even exists, after all!). Likewise, the OSR has introduced many retro-clones into the open gaming environment, making those "curmudgeonly" games widely available, as well.

The OGL, and the philosophy behind it, has kept older versions of D&D vigorous, and will continue to do so for a long, long time.

 

[prosfilaes]

The OGL, and the philosophy behind it, has kept older versions of D&D vigorous, and will continue to do so for a long, long time.

I disagree with that statement in a sense. Older versions of D&D, where you can't buy new copies of the rule books, that don't have new material coming for them, are going to have only a dwindling player base. To have vigor will require stepping forward into an active system, one that lives, even if the difference between it and some old version of D&D is practically nil. OSRIC, Pathfinder, Castles & Crusades, any game that's in print and hopefully has new material coming out for it, only those can attract new players.

 

[slwoyach]

I'd say it's probably about 50% 4e, 35% 3e, and 15% old school. As was mentioned before, most old school players don't fiddle with things like OP. I have serious doubts about WotC's claims of 4e's wild popularity. The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate it's the least successful edition to date.

 

[Shemeska]

I'd cut it differently. D&D 3.0 is old school in a sense; the users have decided to stay with a decidedly out-dated system. Pathfinder isn't D&D 3.5; its players have decided to take up with a new system and have an investment in it.

My group may not reflect the market at large, but at least as we've played 3.x D&D, there has never been any division between 3.0, 3.5, and more recently PF. We still use the 3.0 PHB, but we freely use 3.5 books as supplementary to that, and lately the option of including PF stuff has popped up.

Mind you, I'm not running a campaign at the moment. If I did, I'd probably use PF as the baseline core and bring in 3.0 and 3.5 supplement material as needed pretty freely.

I have to wonder how hard any division between the iterations of 3.x D&D actually exist out there in people playing it. Do people use only 3.0, or only 3.5, or only PF material to the exclusion of the others, or do they (like my group) freely incorporate material from across that spectrum of D&D since they're all variations of one another?

 

[deinol]

I have to wonder how hard any division between the iterations of 3.x D&D actually exist out there in people playing it. Do people use only 3.0, or only 3.5, or only PF material to the exclusion of the others, or do they (like my group) freely incorporate material from across that spectrum of D&D since they're all variations of one another?

From a business perspective it is very important to Paizo whether or not 3.0 or 3.5 players are interested in buying and incorporating PF supplements. From most players perspective, the line is probably fairly fuzzy and doesn't really matter.

I'm certain that if we could get hard numbers on playing groups it would be useful marketing data. Certainly PF is doing well enough that a 3.0/3.5 d20 supplement might be a viable product still, but I'll bet a PF compatible supplement containing the same info is likely to get more sales.

The numbers on retro-clones are such that small companies can probably break even or make a profit, I doubt a big company like Green Ronin is going to produce a monster book for Swords & Wizardry or Dark Dungeons. As much as I would love it if they did.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just a quibble: the bulk of core D&D3.x (and then some) is OGC, is therefore perfectly legal to copy, and will be easily available for the foreseeable future (that's why Pathfinder even exists, after all!). Likewise, the OSR has introduced many retro-clones into the open gaming environment, making those "curmudgeonly" games widely available, as well.

The OGL, and the philosophy behind it, has kept older versions of D&D vigorous, and will continue to do so for a long, long time.

IANAL, but I think you'll find that photocopying entire printed texts isn't legal because you're copying things other than OGLed material.

Now printing out your copy of the OGL is fine.

But you're still not getting shiny new rulebooks like everyone else has, hence the curmudgeonlyness.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd say it's probably about 50% 4e, 35% 3e, and 15% old school. As was mentioned before, most old school players don't fiddle with things like OP. I have serious doubts about WotC's claims of 4e's wild popularity. The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate it's the least successful edition to date.

I'm not so sure about that. While it might not be doing as well as 3e did over the same time-since-release span, it's probably killing 2e and taking its stuff.

I have to wonder how hard any division between the iterations of 3.x D&D actually exist out there in people playing it. Do people use only 3.0, or only 3.5, or only PF material to the exclusion of the others, or do they (like my group) freely incorporate material from across that spectrum of D&D since they're all variations of one another?

Sounds like how I've always treated 0e, 1e and 2e - close-enough-to-be-mostly-interchangeable variants on the same theme, with material freely poached from all.

In my current campaign I've already converted and run published adventures from every edition except 2e, mostly because my 2e adventure collection is somewhat less than stellar.

The 3.0 group I played in did a hard conversion to 3.5 not long before I left (caused in-game by my PC, no less!); the DM is incorporating some PF stuff now but I think 3.0 has been left behind.

Lan-"yeah, I broke the world"-efan

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

There's very little hard information given. I also have very little inclination to speculate.

However we do have a "possibly inflated" number of 6 million D&D players as of a survey done by WotC in 2007. It's mentioned in this article:
'Dungeons & Dragons' fights for its future - Technology & science - Games - msnbc.com

While 6 million might be inflated, I seem to recall that being the same number used by WotC when they took the "pirates" to court over the distribution of their pdfs.

What the breakdown of that is by edition? No clue and don't especially care. I'm not aware of Paizo talking about its print runs, so guestimating the numbers by relying on that recent report about 4e and Pathfinder being close to the same in sales isn't especially useful:
ICv2 - Top 5 RPGs--Q3 2010

Here's something to ponder... Take 6 million as the number. Now, look at the number of users registered here and at rpg.net. Assume that each and every single account registered belongs to a unique individual (no sock puppets, no cross-overs between the two sites) and further, that each account is an active account (active poster and that none of the accounts are banned). And then go ahead and assume that each and every single person is an active D&D gamer.

Rpg.net: 48,988
ENWorld: 95,163
Total: 144,151

That's a tiny fraction of D&D folks. Not sure what the number of users over at WotC forums are, but there's a pretty significant chunk that doesn't bother with forums it seems.

 

[Mercurius]

There's very little hard information given. I also have very little inclination to speculate.

However we do have a "possibly inflated" number of 6 million D&D players as of a survey done by WotC in 2007. It's mentioned in this article:
'Dungeons & Dragons' fights for its future - Technology & science - Games - msnbc.com

While 6 million might be inflated, I seem to recall that being the same number used by WotC when they took the "pirates" to court over the distribution of their pdfs.

What the breakdown of that is by edition? No clue and don't especially care. I'm not aware of Paizo talking about its print runs, so guestimating the numbers by relying on that recent report about 4e and Pathfinder being close to the same in sales isn't especially useful:
ICv2 - Top 5 RPGs--Q3 2010

Here's something to ponder... Take 6 million as the number. Now, look at the number of users registered here and at rpg.net. Assume that each and every single account registered belongs to a unique individual (no sock puppets, no cross-overs between the two sites) and further, that each account is an active account (active poster and that none of the accounts are banned). And then go ahead and assume that each and every single person is an active D&D gamer.

Rpg.net: 48,988
ENWorld: 95,163
Total: 144,151

That's a tiny fraction of D&D folks. Not sure what the number of users over at WotC forums are, but there's a pretty significant chunk that doesn't bother with forums it seems.

242,400 at WotC, but that includes all networks afaict. Then you have to add in all the smaller forums: Paizo, Dragonsfoot, RPG Site, etc. We're probably talking about 500,000ish registered users on various sites, still less than 10% of their mythical 6 million figure (which somehow doesn't seem to change).

Even if there really are six million D&D players worldwide, that number probably includes very casual players, even those that played just once during a given year (in that case, 2007). I would imagine that something like 50+% of those six million don't buy any game books, and less than 10% buy anything beyond the Player's Handbook, and an even smaller percent buy anything more than the core books. So you might have a breakdown like so:

six million - anyone who played at least one session of D&D in a given year.
three million - anyone who played multiple sessions, is in an ongoing campaign, maybe owns a PHB.
one million - regular game, casual player, owns 1-3ish books.
c. 500,000 - somewhat serious players, owns a few books.
100,000 - serious players, owns many books.
10,000 - hardcore players, owns tons of books.

That breakdown is just made up, but it illustrates the point I'm trying to get to: Of the above numbers, it is really that least 100,000 (or so) that spend the most money on game books. Sure, the PHB might sell a million or more copies, and the DMG and MM might sell almost as much, but Martial Power 2? The Eberron Player's Guide? I would guess that very few books beyond three core rule books go beyond five figures in sales. Maybe later DMGs, PHBs, and MMs, but not the others. I mean, how many copies could Primal Power have sold? And here is the problem: A large percentage of the 100,000 or so serious-to-hardcore gamers that might buy Primal Power have a D&D Insider account, which negates the need to own the hard copy.

But it also points out how a very small percentage of players buy a very large percentage of product and a fair number of that small percentage won't purchase certain books because of D&D Insider.