Roll20 Reports First Drop For D&D

Roll20's latest stats are in. In terms of games run, D&D has shown its first drop since I last reported on Roll20's stats, from 51.87% in Q2 2019 to 47.54% in Q4 (although it is slightly higher than the 45% of Q3, which I missed!) Call of Cthulhu rises from 14.3% in Q2 to 15.3%, while Pathfinder drops from 6.5% to about 5% (but recovers from a massive Q3 drop, expected in the run-up to a new edition). In terms of player numbers, D&D dropped by about 1%, while Pathfinder increased by about 2%. Call of Cthulhu had a massive 7% rise.

Pathfinder 2E is the strange number here. Just over 1% in Q4 2019 (which is apparently a rise of 82%). I wonder if some of the Pathfinder 1E stats are being conflated with Pathfinder 2E under the generic "Pathfinder" heading?

The Orr Group also shows an interesting new stat, with the biggest growths in Q4 2019.

Ironsworn RPG's big spike coincide with Roll20's own in-house stream, so it is to be expected on their own internal reports.

Here's the full list.

And here's the Q2 report.

 

[Orius]

Interesting that they have D&D 5E and then separately Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition... though, the latter is quite small.

That might possibly be Rules Cyclopedia rather than 5e.

 

[Panda-s1]

That might possibly be Rules Cyclopedia rather than 5e.

I didn't think basic d&d really had "editions", at least not the same way current d&d does, or does it?

 

[Emirikol Prime]

Pathfinder 2nd edition feels very dire to me.

 

[Umbran]

FATE shows up twice? Even though the first occurrence seems to specify that this is "all versions" of FATE?

No. It shows up three times. As "FATE (list of games)" at the top. Then as "FATE" and "Fate" later in the list.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Pathfinder 2nd edition feels very dire to me.

Depends on how roll20 statistics work, but if I understood right, they are based on what GM sets as "Playing this game" instead of what sheets are used.

So in that case I think its mostly because of three things 1) Pathfinder tags are referred as "Pathfinder" and "Pathfinder Second Edition" so lot of lazy people might just tag 2e games as "Pathfinder" games 2) There aren't any AP 2e modules out for roll20 yet and its good idea to wait until all six parts of AP are out anyway before running any of them. But compared to previous situation where people knew roll20 wouldn't release pathfinder modules, I think some people like me might actively wait for roll20 to release modules first Plus people might wait for more player content to be out first. 3) people are still playing the 1e campaigns that they had on going, I mean most people wouldn't quit the campaign just because edition changed and not lot of people play multiple campaigns at same time.

Either way, most pathfinder players I know unfortunately prefer playing live to roll20 so I don't feel too bad about roll20 play statistics being low.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I see the Call of Chulthu is in the second position. Here in Spain it was enough popular, but not so much as World of Darkness.

But now Lovecraft's work is public domain, isn't? You can fin monsters from Lovecraft's myths in Pathfinder and Starfinder, for example. Could this be bad for Chaosium when other companies can publish their own version of Lovecraft's myths?

 

[NotRussellCrowe]

I see the Call of Chulthu is in the second position. Here in Spain it was enough popular, but not so much as World of Darkness.

But now Lovecraft's work is public domain, isn't? You can fin monsters from Lovecraft's myths in Pathfinder and Starfinder, for example. Could this be bad for Chaosium when other companies can publish their own version of Lovecraft's myths?

There already are other Cthulhu games out there. Trail of Cthulhu is likely the next biggest one but there's also Delta Green, Cthulhu Dark, Cthulhu Hack and likely a few others I'm not familiar with. Free League is also going to make their own Cthulhu game based around one-shots.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah. There are dozens and dozens of Cthulhu games. Have been for years.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I didn't think basic d&d really had "editions", at least not the same way current d&d does, or does it?

Not as such no.

You can, more or less, trace a straight line between OD&D and the Rules Cyclopedia. Though, there are differences.

If you're talking shop with somebody who is versed though you will generally specify.

There's the original OD&D

This was followed by Holmes' Basic. This version essentially restated the original OD&D game in such a way as to make it more than just theoretically possible to learn the game by reading it.

Followed by B/X (Basic, Expert)

Then there is BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortals). This is generally, the set you will hear people refer to as the Red Box, as the Basic was that famous red box with that iconic Elmore cover. This seems to have been the most prevalent version of the original game by sheer numbers. This is also the most thorough as this set takes you beyond level 36. B/X for example, maxed out at 14, I think.

Then, the final iteration was the Rules Cyclopedia.

There's minor rules differences from version to version. In the case of the Rules Cyclopedia it didn't really change much, but rather was more of a restatement of most of BECMI in one book.

Also, if you're looking at retroclones, they were generally state which of these versions specifically they are emulating.

Here's a good thread going into the nitty gritty: So what is the difference between Basic, B/X and BECMI?

 

[darjr]

I thought they said they were counting character sheet types also?