Fantasy Grounds Top RPGs (Last 12 Months)

Fantasy Grounds has sent along its latest figures for RPG rulesets used in the last 12 months. 5E dominates with 70%, of course (up by 1%); Pathfinder 2E has snuck onto the chart at 6th place (though it's only been available for a couple of months), and Starfinder has taken 4th place.

RulesetUsage2016Q4_26805_image002.png


RulesetUsage2014_17990_image002.png

As always, "MoreCore" is FG's default generic module used when there isn't a specific game package available.
 
Russ Morrissey

Comments

Do we know anything about FG vs Roll20 relating to player base, etc.. I'm just curious. I am a FG GM but only because I have sunk A LOT of money into it over the years.
 

LordEntrails

Adventurer
As always, "MoreCore" is FG's default generic module used when there isn't a specific game package available.
Sorry @Morrus, you are wrong on this one. "CoreRPG" is the generic ruleset available with FG. "MoreCore" is actually a community ruleset for generic play. But, the community has made all sorts of character sheets, themes, and such for MoreCore hence it's popularity.
Also, is there official support for PF2e for Fantasy Grounds yet or is this all used input at this point?
Their is official support for PF2E. But the numbers of users are pretty tiny.
I think it's hilarious that 2nd edition has more players than 4th edition.
Agreed. But to help clairy the other 2E comments/questions. The 2E ruleset also supports 1E AD&D play. And part of its popularity is that you can get the core books and adventures and more in FG so you can get all the automation etc. You can not get any 4E D&D 'books' in FG (though you might still be able to automatically parse D&D Insider if you have a subscription.)
Do we know anything about FG vs Roll20 relating to player base, etc.. I'm just curious. I am a FG GM but only because I have sunk A LOT of money into it over the years.
No. Roll20 used to report on number of players, as counted by number of accounts, but since the NolanT scandal they no longer report number of players. Instead they report percentages so we don't know numbers. But, FG doesn't report numbers of players either. Instead they report number of online games that either use an Ultimate license or their "alias" feature (i.e. games that are hosted by standard licenses and do not use the alias feature, and/or local only/offline games do not show up).
 

aramis erak

Explorer
I got to think this is a high water mark for this edition. It can't get higher than 70% can it?
At one point, AD&D1E was 90% of all RPG sales worldwide... it's unlikely to ever get that high again, due to Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel, DCU, and other longstanding licensed settings that draw new players from outside the natural word of mouth.

I don't think it will ever exceed 75% again on sales. If it ever gets above 90% again, it's a really bad sign for the industry as a whole.



Why? 4E is a dead RPG. PF2 just came out.
That so many are still playing a dead RPG compared to something that just came out speaks highly of the dead RPG.
Roll20 and FG have different featuresets, and different usage profiles for various games and editions...

Roll20 shows more 4E players than AD&D 1&2 combined, while FG shows way more AD&D players than 4E players. Probably because Roll20 has better 4E oriented assets than FG. And neither matches the top 10 of current sales.
 

GrahamWills

Adventurer
I got to think this is a high water mark for this edition. It can't get higher than 70% can it?
Sure. It could be 100% in a single day all that fantasy grounds needs do is stop supporting other systems -- remember this is not a graph of "how many people play system X"; this is a chart of "how many people play system X using a single online method".

There is almost certainly a high correlation between the two questions, but it's not 100%. D&D is particularly good for online play; as a data point, from an online point of view, 100% of my play is D&D. However, it's actually about 10% of my total gaming.

Systems that are better F2F, like Fate for example, will be represented poorly.

T
 

Hussar

Legend
The players handbook is 68 out of all books on Amazon right now. The GIFT set is 498.

a couple days ago it broke the 40s.

it is growing.
That is freaking INSANE. A five year old book, never minding RPG book, that has sat in the top 100 for five straight years? Incredible.

There's one thing about it, there will not be even a whisper of 6e until we see the PHB drop out of the top 1000.

/snip

Roll20 shows more 4E players than AD&D 1&2 combined, while FG shows way more AD&D players than 4E players. Probably because Roll20 has better 4E oriented assets than FG. And neither matches the top 10 of current sales.
Age of the platform might matter as well. Fantasy Grounds has been around a lot longer than Roll20. Lots of users got into it in the 3e days, and you'd have a fair chunk of AD&D users at that time as well. Roll20 didn't really come out until well into 4e time, so, it's likely going to reflect the player base at that time.
 

aramis erak

Explorer
I got to think this is a high water mark for this edition. It can't get higher than 70% can it?
At one point, AD&D1E was 90% of all RPG sales worldwide... it's unlikely to ever get that high again, due to Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel, DCU, and other longstanding licensed settings that draw new players from outside the natural word of mouth.

I don't think it will ever exceed 75% again on sales. If it eve

Noting that D&D 5E is poorly represented outside the english-speaking world (it took several years for translations to be authorized

Why? 4E is a dead RPG. PF2 just came out.
That so many are still playing a dead RPG compared to something that just came out speaks highly of the dead RPG.
Roll20 and FG have different featuresets, and different usage profiles for various games and editions...

Roll20 shows more 4E players than AD&D 1&2 combined, while FG shows way more AD&D players than 4E players. Probably because Roll20 has better 4E oriented assets than FG.

Curious that L5R and Genesys don't show up. I see Star Wars.
Not really. Genesys and star wars are close enough that the star wars featureset is likely being employed by Genesys players.

L5R 5e has little online play presence... I like it, it's a good engine... but it's a case of a fanbase divided sharply by the new mechanics.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
Sure. It could be 100% in a single day all that fantasy grounds needs do is stop supporting other systems -- remember this is not a graph of "how many people play system X"; this is a chart of "how many people play system X using a single online method".

There is almost certainly a high correlation between the two questions, but it's not 100%. D&D is particularly good for online play; as a data point, from an online point of view, 100% of my play is D&D. However, it's actually about 10% of my total gaming.

Systems that are better F2F, like Fate for example, will be represented poorly.

T
I think the opposite is true.

I think the percentage of people playing 5e on actual tables is much higher than it shows online.

Online is probably more populated with hobby gamers looking for others that play their favourite games.

5e is largely comprised of previously non-hobby gamers. I think a big boost of its popularity is the attraction of being away from a screen.

It occupies the same space as boardgames, only with more talking.
 

GrahamWills

Adventurer
I think the percentage of people playing 5e on actual tables is much higher than it shows online.
Well, we can all conjecture without evidence, but if you look at the proportion of people playing 5E at conventions, it is much lower than the numbers for online. If you look at the proportion of money spent on 5e compared to the overall industry, it is much lower than online.

Obviously we can't be sure, but what info is available suggests that online play over-empahsizes 5E. Anyone who has contrary information, I'd sincerely like to hear it
 

Parmandur

Legend
Well, we can all conjecture without evidence, but if you look at the proportion of people playing 5E at conventions, it is much lower than the numbers for online. If you look at the proportion of money spent on 5e compared to the overall industry, it is much lower than online.

Obviously we can't be sure, but what info is available suggests that online play over-empahsizes 5E. Anyone who has contrary information, I'd sincerely like to hear it
What are you talking about in terms of sales? Every indication I've seen locally and in general indicates a ratio of sales compared to the industry comparable if not higher than the virtual tabletop numbers.
 

darjr

I crit!
Convention play isn’t down as far as I can tell. A well run local convention had to recruit more DMs then they planned to fill the need. They started with 9 tables.

Gameholecon is scheduled 100 tables for their AL epic. That’s just the epic. I think there are many tables at the same time not in the epic. And if things go like they have in the past they’ll have quite a few last minute tables to fill.
 

GrahamWills

Adventurer
If you look at the proportion of money spent on 5e compared to the overall industry, it is much lower than online.
What does that mean?
Wizards of the Coast sold over $31 million in print units across the 18-month period between May 2017 and October 2018, according to Bookstat. So that would give annual sales of about $22 million. Digital adds only $1m, so $23 total. Total RPG sales (ICV2 data) is $65 million.

So, the raw numbers show that D&D has 33% of sales, a vastly lower proportion than the portion of online games being played on roll20 -- hence my statement that the proportion of money spent on 5e compared to the overall industry is much lower than the proportion of online games that are 5e.

Now these are pretty vague numbers -- Bookstat might be reporting sales outside the US/Canada whereas the ICV2 data is US/Canada only, so 33% may be too high (I have to depend on Forbes' reporting of Bookstat info as I am not a member). On the other hand the total ICV2 data likely includes a ton of stuff which is system agnostic (miniatures, maps, dice bags, etc.). Heck Dwarven forge is probably a noticeable part of that

But even if you assume that a third of all gamer sales is system agnostic (which seems high to me) we're still only seeing D&D at about the 50% mark --much lower than online proportions.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I'm surprised AD&D was more than 4e. 4e isn't my jam, but I understand how a lot of people prefer it, and I'd think more would than AD&D. I mean, a virtual tabletop for the version of D&D that is all about the tabletop seems like a match.

I guess as implied above, FG just isn't the best platform for 4e players to use

Regarding virtual vs in person, this is totally anecdotal, but my virtual groups long died away and my in person gaming groups picked up. FWIW. IME, virtual groups had a lot more cancellations and whatnot.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Wizards of the Coast sold over $31 million in print units across the 18-month period between May 2017 and October 2018, according to Bookstat. So that would give annual sales of about $22 million. Digital adds only $1m, so $23 total. Total RPG sales (ICV2 data) is $65 million.

So, the raw numbers show that D&D has 33% of sales, a vastly lower proportion than the portion of online games being played on roll20 -- hence my statement that the proportion of money spent on 5e compared to the overall industry is much lower than the proportion of online games that are 5e.

Now these are pretty vague numbers -- Bookstat might be reporting sales outside the US/Canada whereas the ICV2 data is US/Canada only, so 33% may be too high (I have to depend on Forbes' reporting of Bookstat info as I am not a member). On the other hand the total ICV2 data likely includes a ton of stuff which is system agnostic (miniatures, maps, dice bags, etc.). Heck Dwarven forge is probably a noticeable part of that

But even if you assume that a third of all gamer sales is system agnostic (which seems high to me) we're still only seeing D&D at about the 50% mark --much lower than online proportions.
Bookstat tracks online bookstore orders, which is a different dataset from ICV2: doesn't include FLGS sales, among other things.
 

In Our Store!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top