Most influential RPG

[Theory of Games]

4e didn't live up to Hasbro's expectations, but compared to any other RPG it was a magnificent success in objective terms. Unless of course you believe Chris Sims, Owen K. C. Stephens, Greg Bilsland, and Trevor Kidd are all lying liars who lie.

4e didn't live up to the expectations of the many of D&D players, which is why Pathfinder temporarily became the #1 selling ttrpg. It is what it is. I read your link:

• Sims denies PF outsold D&D4e and brings up reasons for 4e's failure without citing any real sales numbers
• Owens denies PF outsold D&D4e and literally says no one has access to ttrpg sales numbers outside of the individual ttrpg companies (suggesting ICv2 lied) without citing any real sales numbers
• Bilsland and Schmevor (what a name) both only chirp in to agree with Sims' comments without citing any real sales numbers

Without some evidence here, it's just the opinions of a handful of people vs. ICv2. One thing that helps ICv2 is the Roll20 Orr Report of Q3 2014 which reveals, at least on Roll20, the majority of GMs reported their groups were playing PF1e over ANY (other) edition of D&D.

I'll go with ICv2 and the Orr Report as indicators that PF1e dominated D&D at certain points. I also think it's good for the ttrpg hobby to NOT have one game constantly dominate.

 

[Committed Hero]

It's difficult to determine whether Vampire was a response to the zeitgeist of the period and/or benefited from TSR's decline. But there is no question it belongs in the top 3. If you quibble about editions, include it in the World of Darkness.

I also like to point out that whatever his weaknesses, Gygax did what a lot of game designers don't care to - which was to market his game. His efforts in the 80s laid a lot of the groundwork for D&D's endurance. I think he could have thrived in the social media era, assuming he could refrain from the odious habits of the old guard.

 

[dbolack]

Without some evidence here, it's just the opinions of a handful of people vs. ICv2. One thing that helps ICv2 is the Roll20 Orr Report of Q3 2014 which reveals, at least on Roll20, the majority of GMs reported their groups were playing PF1e over ANY (other) edition of D&D.

Here's the thing, though. Believe me, I'd love to see some periodic rotation at the top as much as anyone, but every source that is ever cited is anecdotal. They are self-reporting surveys. They have value, but they should not be extrapolated as a state of the hobby at their points in time.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Snarf's Inarguable List of Top 10 Most Influential TTRPGs!

It is very rare that anyone posts a list of 10 items that I completely agree with, with short, well-reasoned arguments for each.

I might read more in this thread, but honestly, this is a really, really strong list. All the games on it have seriously influenced many other games and you can point to direct mechanics and patterns that use them. Stellar work.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

By that logic it’s Brownsteins all the way down and nothing else matters.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree. In the "OSR / D&D-like" world the only one that matters is D&D. Nothing else has really been influential outside the area of feeling like old-school D&D. Some have shown that you can be successful doing it, but not have been influential.

 

[zedhatool]

4e didn't live up to the expectations of the many of D&D players, which is why Pathfinder temporarily became the #1 selling ttrpg. It is what it is. I read your link:

• Sims denies PF outsold D&D4e and brings up reasons for 4e's failure without citing any real sales numbers
• Owens denies PF outsold D&D4e and literally says no one has access to ttrpg sales numbers outside of the individual ttrpg companies (suggesting ICv2 lied) without citing any real sales numbers
• Bilsland and Schmevor (what a name) both only chirp in to agree with Sims' comments without citing any real sales numbers

Without some evidence here, it's just the opinions of a handful of people vs. ICv2. One thing that helps ICv2 is the Roll20 Orr Report of Q3 2014 which reveals, at least on Roll20, the majority of GMs reported their groups were playing PF1e over ANY (other) edition of D&D.

I'll go with ICv2 and the Orr Report as indicators that PF1e dominated D&D at certain points. I also think it's good for the ttrpg hobby to NOT have one game constantly dominate.

It's not "the opinions of a handful of people," it's "the statements of people who had access to the internal sales data of both relevant companies." The idea isn't that ICv2 lied, it's that ICv2 is working from a poor data source, namely self reports by game stores.

The report you linked doesn't say what you think it says. It includes D&D 5e, and has that below both Pathfinder and D&D 3.5. Obviously, post-5e numbers of 4e players is not a good indicator for 4e's success when it was the current edition of D&D. I take from the fact that Pathfinder is above 5e in this survey that sampling bias is a big problem. Pathfinder did not do better than 5e, especially not in 5e's early release days. The most obvious sources of bias are (a) it's a pre-COVID survey of games played on Roll20, not a census of all RPG tables (b) most games on Roll20—as the survey notes—are not tagged with any edition.

I'm not endorsing D&D being on top. There are plenty of other games I would be happy to see take the top spot. But the best evidence indicates that there was never a year where Pathfinder outperformed 4e.

 

[Theory of Games]

It's not "the opinions of a handful of people," it's "the statements of people who had access to the internal sales data of both relevant companies." The idea isn't that ICv2 lied, it's that ICv2 is working from a poor data source, namely self reports by game stores.

The report you linked doesn't say what you think it says. It includes D&D 5e, and has that below both Pathfinder and D&D 3.5. Obviously, post-5e numbers of 4e players is not a good indicator for 4e's success when it was the current edition of D&D. I take from the fact that Pathfinder is above 5e in this survey that sampling bias is a big problem. Pathfinder did not do better than 5e, especially not in 5e's early release days. The most obvious sources of bias are (a) it's a pre-COVID survey of games played on Roll20, not a census of all RPG tables (b) most games on Roll20—as the survey notes—are not tagged with any edition.

I'm not endorsing D&D being on top. There are plenty of other games I would be happy to see take the top spot. But the best evidence indicates that there was never a year where Pathfinder outperformed 4e.

What I said about the Orr Report wasn't regarding players - it was what GMs reported, which leans towards what groups were playing rather than just "what players liked". Stats are stats. You can call it "sampling bias" or whatever but just because the data doesn't support your position doesn't mean it's off-base.

Here's the thing, though. Believe me, I'd love to see some periodic rotation at the top as much as anyone, but every source that is ever cited is anecdotal. They are self-reporting surveys. They have value, but they should not be extrapolated as a state of the hobby at their points in time.

So we could call Sims, Owens and the others opinions "anecdotal" then?

 

[dbolack]

So we could call Sims, Owens and the others opinions "anecdotal" then?

I suppose, though they are allegedly reporting from something that might be useful data. As opposed to the ICv2, etc.

 

[Staffan]

4e didn't live up to the expectations of the many of D&D players, which is why Pathfinder temporarily became the #1 selling ttrpg. It is what it is. I read your link:

• Sims denies PF outsold D&D4e and brings up reasons for 4e's failure without citing any real sales numbers
• Owens denies PF outsold D&D4e and literally says no one has access to ttrpg sales numbers outside of the individual ttrpg companies (suggesting ICv2 lied) without citing any real sales numbers
• Bilsland and Schmevor (what a name) both only chirp in to agree with Sims' comments without citing any real sales numbers

Without some evidence here, it's just the opinions of a handful of people vs. ICv2. One thing that helps ICv2 is the Roll20 Orr Report of Q3 2014 which reveals, at least on Roll20, the majority of GMs reported their groups were playing PF1e over ANY (other) edition of D&D.

I'll go with ICv2 and the Orr Report as indicators that PF1e dominated D&D at certain points. I also think it's good for the ttrpg hobby to NOT have one game constantly dominate.

Chris and Owen are among the few people who have insight into both D&D and Pathfinder sales numbers, on account of having worked for both Wizards and Paizo. They are likely bound by NDAs preventing them from sharing exact numbers, but when they say 4e sold more than Pathfinder, I believe them. And no-one is saying that ICv2 are lying. They're saying their methodology is bad: it consists of calling stores and asking whomever is picking up the phone about sales. They are missing lots of sales channels, such as non-game stores (which is a significant channel for D&D), Amazon, or direct sales (which is one for Paizo). So ICv2 gives interesting anecdotal data, but can't be relied on.

Also, I find it odd that you're referring to some of them by first and some by last name, and also felt the need to mangle one of their names.

 

[Theory of Games]

Chris and Owen are among the few people who have insight into both D&D and Pathfinder sales numbers, on account of having worked for both Wizards and Paizo. They are likely bound by NDAs preventing them from sharing exact numbers, but when they say 4e sold more than Pathfinder, I believe them. And no-one is saying that ICv2 are lying. They're saying their methodology is bad: it consists of calling stores and asking whomever is picking up the phone about sales. They are missing lots of sales channels, such as non-game stores (which is a significant channel for D&D), Amazon, or direct sales (which is one for Paizo). So ICv2 gives interesting anecdotal data, but can't be relied on.

Also, I find it odd that you're referring to some of them by first and some by last name, and also felt the need to mangle one of their names.

Posting that Sims & Stephens are "likely bound by NDAs" is pure speculation that doesn't give their comments about ttrpg sales numbers any real value. They're essentially saying "Trust me, bro"

Meanwhile, ICv2 is a trusted source of sales data for several industries, not just ttrpgs. D&D being outsold by Pathfinder would be a big deal, big enough to impact D&D's market value. If ICv2's numbers were off, why wouldn't Hasbro issue an official statement pointing out the errors?

Your argument doesn't make sense. Not good business sense, anyway.