Roll20 publishes Game Percentages... Pathfinder at 25%

[Selkirk]

yeah i think the graph lies on faulty assumptions (it almost has too ). pathfinder games will most likely hold steady...and could see a jump with new books coming out. 5e games will see an increase but...probably not that rapid . i would imagine we would see a decline in the number of 3.5 d&d games...or perhaps not...maybe people taking the polls will just click 5e games and 3.5 games...or just use the mechanics and still self identify with 3.5 (if your using 3.5 content it's a 3.5 game).

 

[Morrus]

Sincere question: Then why do it? It assumes a static progression and as you say, is "nonsense".

Why not? I mean, why talk about it at all, in that case? It's just conversation. If we had to justify every post on the internet, it'd be a pretty darn quiet place! I had some spare minutes, was curious what it would look like, thought others might be too. If you're not, you're not. That's cool.

That aside, given the treatment 5e gets (is the 5th D&D iteration of a monster really "news"?)

It's news if you're interested in such things, like I am. If you're not, then no, I guess it's not news.

 

[sgtscott658]

Interesting stuff. Hopefully people will hear more good things about 5E and jump over and check out WoTC's latest D&D offering. I like 3.5 and PF but the mechanics of both 3.5 and PF can bog down play at times where as 5E is nice and quick, leaving plenty of room for both RP and combat. Note, this is purely my personal perspective from when I played 3.5/ PF.

In the end, if people are having fun with what ever version of D&D they are playing, then that in itself is a very good thing.

Scott

 

[prosfilaes]

(Also, in terms of Pathfinder, it is handily beat by WotC, its just happens to be for 3 editions).

Games that Paizo has supported handily beats games WotC has supported, 55% to 44% (don't forget WoTC Star Wars or that Paizo did produce official material for D&D 3.5 and still does label their books as 3.5 compatible). While D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are quite similar in some ways, I think the people still running D&D 3.5 have drawn a line between Pathfinder and D&D 3.5, and that 3.5 compatible logo is more and more of a stretch; and WotC is no longer supporting older versions of D&D, so I think it really most fair to compare what's currently being supported by Paizo (Pathfinder) and what's currently being supported by WotC (D&D 5), if we want to compare companies.

Now, it is possible that there is some 5E "bubble" and once the initial enthusiasm fades, the growth trend will reverse. But I kinda doubt it.

The best selling RPG of all time, "AD&D 1st Edition and 2E" on that list, is down to 2.65% of the games. There is nothing more certain then that the growth will cease and the decline will start, and one day it will be the province of grognards alone. It will likely level out at some point, which I personally expect will put it as the #1 game in the market, but never again will WotC's D&D be the undisputed leader.

 

[TerraDave]

... so I think it really most fair to compare what's currently being supported by Paizo (Pathfinder) and what's currently being supported by WotC (D&D 5), if we want to compare companies.

And I think we basically are.

The best selling RPG of all time, "AD&D 1st Edition and 2E" on that list, is down to 2.65% of the games. There is nothing more certain then that the growth will cease and the decline will start, and one day it will be the province of grognards alone. It will likely level out at some point, which I personally expect will put it as the #1 game in the market, but never again will WotC's D&D be the undisputed leader.

And eventually we will all die. But, if we do manage to live another year, or 5, I doubt some other company will be "disputing" WotC D&Ds lead in TRPGs, as long we don't all die and they are still making it.

 

[Azgulor]

@ Morrus: I guess my question stems from a "what if I reverse things?" viewpoint. I think that if the data were flipped, there'd be a flurry of folks (including Umbram) that would immediately underscore how isolated/tangential/false conclusions such claims would be.

In other words, the site seems far more forgiving of "pro 5e" baseless speculation and would treat "pro-PF" baseless speculation as needlessly antagonistic or an invitation to edition-warring. YMMV.

 

[prosfilaes]

And I think we basically are.

Not if we're combining various editions of D&D together. If we're counting D&D 3.5, it seems weird to count it for WotC that hasn't supported it in 6 years and not for a company that has at least nominally produced material for it this year.

But, if we do manage to live another year, or 5, I doubt some other company will be "disputing" WotC D&Ds lead in TRPGs, as long we don't all die and they are still making it.

Do you believe D&D 5 will bring in a huge number of new people? I don't, and I have less to say about that case, so I'll focus on the case that D&D 5 takes players from other games.

62% of those people are playing a modern form of D&D (including Pathfinder). So of those, 40% Pathfinder, 26% D&D 3.5, 18% D&D 5 and 17% D&D 4. Over the course of a year, if 75% of D&D 3.5 and D&D 4 move to D&D 5, that's only 50% of the overall population. I hardly think that a supported game that's been growing in players is going to start bleeding players, but if a quarter jump over the next year, that put them at 30/60. I think that a pretty generous count; D&D 3.5 players (who have chosen not switch for years) and D&D 4 players (who are playing a very distinct game) may not jump at that rate.

 

[Morrus]

@ Morrus: I guess my question stems from a "what if I reverse things?" viewpoint. I think that if the data were flipped, there'd be a flurry of folks (including Umbram) that would immediately underscore how isolated/tangential/false conclusions such claims would be.

I can't really speak for what other people may or may not think of some hypothetical statistics.

In other words, the site seems far more forgiving of "pro 5e" baseless speculation and would treat "pro-PF" baseless speculation as needlessly antagonistic or an invitation to edition-warring. YMMV.

If you have issues with the site's moderation, please take it up in Meta. Let's not hijack this thread. Thanks.

 

[jrowland]

That's a pithy soundbyte, sure, and we all know that, but I was more specifically referring to the corporate marshaling of tribalism. That's particular manifestation of the phenomenon is more recent.

To quote the Rolling Stones "Well he can't be a man because he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me"...is 1965 "more recent"? How far back are we talking here? I think your thesis that social media heightens things might be more the point (both sides: the tribalism itself as well as our awareness of it). Ford Vs. Chevy in the states was a thing for many decades...in that people had the same sports team ra-ra for "their" brand, up to and including violence. The pithy soundbite is all there is. It is in our nature. Full Stop. Everything else is just cultural window dressing of the era.

 

[DaveMage]

the first stat i found interesting was the d&d 3.5e player percentage...

That surprises me too. Not only is 3.5 still popular in the wake of Pathfinder, but it's outperforming 4E by a significant margin too. 3.5 hasn't had a new product released *for almost 7 years* and it's still that popular??!!? Wow!