Roll20's Latest Report Shows Growth Everywhere!

Roll20 has released its latest usage stats. These are from Quarter 1 2020, and while there isn't much change in the relative ranks of different games since 2019, they report that nearly everything has doubled during these pandemic times when a lot of gaming has shifted online to virtual tabletops like this.

Since Q4 2019, D&D has climbed back up (from a previous drop) from 47.54% to 50.4% of campaigns. Call of Cthulhu has dropped from 15.35% to 12.15%. Pathfinder has dropped from 4.97% to 4.49% (but Pathfinder 2E has climbed from 1.13% to 1.23%), and Warhammer has dropped from 1.48% to 1.3%. World of Darkness and Star Wars both also show drops. Note these are relative shares, not absolute figures -- in most cases the actual number of games has increased. Notably, Call of Cthulhu remains the second most popular game on Roll20 by a large margin.

The first chart below shows the campaigns run for each system, and the second shows the players. Roll20 says that only games with at least one hour of playtime are counted in these results.

Those with the biggest growth are HeroQuest (4000%!), Old School Essentiants, Blades in the Dark, and L5R.

Here's the full chart. One of these days I'll put all this data (and the Fantasy Grounds data) on a combined chart like the one I do for ICv2 stats.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm going to defend Paizo's decision to release Pathfinder 2e a bit, even though I'm not a massive fan of the (and honestly, still prefer 5e). While we can only guess about their financials, they have mentioned their reasoning to create PF2, and it doesn't seem purely financially motivated. They mentioned being restrained by the design of 3.5 D&D - since they were building PF1 to be largely compatible with 3.5 they couldn't really change the game, make it their own, or give it their identity. PF2 seems to be the game that the designers wanted, and they hoped that their fans (and other gamers) would also like it. As it turns out, many do not like their vision of the game, choosing to play PF1, D&D 5e, or other game systems.
Personally, I don't care for 13th Age or Numenera, and neither of them rival the success of D&D 5e. But the community doesn't respond with "these are failures of systems whose creators were blinded by greed to give us bad products." PF2 provides a crunchy, rules-dense alternative to D&D 5e. It is sort of like a hybrid of 4e and 3.5/PF1 - so we can consider it a natural progression of the 3.5 family of games. In my opinion, PF2 is a natural progression of PF1, staying closer to the spirit of D&D than 4E did (which I have also enjoyed).

Very well said, and I think those are great points. That's why I think it's unfortunate that it's not doing so well (or not doing as well as Paizo would like, or maybe it is doing well and just cloaking that success from my perception).

Then again, maybe it's more that PF1 happened to take advantage of a very specific set of circumstances, and it would be crazy to think that such would repeat again.

 

[JFranklin3000]

Very well said, and I think those are great points. That's why I think it's unfortunate that it's not doing so well (or not doing as well as Paizo would like, or maybe it is doing well and just cloaking that success from my perception).

Then again, maybe it's more that PF1 happened to take advantage of a very specific set of circumstances, and it would be crazy to think that such would repeat again.

Yep I think there is a misconception that most games explode quickly now thanks to both PF1 and 5e. And PF1 didn't explode as fast as we remember the APG was really the turning point. Most games when they release a new edition adopt slowly as people are able to make the characters that they want to or wrap up the existing campaigns that they are playing.

 

[Argyle King]

There is a new edition (RMU or 'Rolemaster Unified') that is coming out soon (they are aiming for later this year). You can download the beta rules for free by signing in to their website and agreeing to the NDA... or at least you could, but their website is down right now. It has been down for a while as they try to shift to a new host without losing any of the content (this has been a long running issue). When the site is up, you will be able to access it here:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php

There are also two main older editions. The older one is commonly called RM2, and that is the edition of the system in its heyday. This edition was revised slightly as 'Rolemaster Classic' in I think 2007, for which some online tools were released. This edition is supported in Fantasy Grounds (in fact I think a new version of the character sheet was just released).

The other older edition is RMSS/FRP (Standard System/Fantasy Role Playing). It is better supported on Roll20, with a useful character sheet.

My friend Peter started the Rolemaster Blog, where we post about the new and the old editions. You can check it out here: The Rolemaster Blog – Articles and discussion on Roleplaying including Shadow World, Forgotten Realms.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'm eager to try PF2, but I also get the impression that what Paizo did was as if Steve Jackson Games decided to release a new edition of GURPS that alienated like 70-80% of people's previous purchases. When you have a huge library of heavy-crunch material like that and a heavily invested fanbase, I think you should be more cautious about evolving the system, trying to keep some backward compatibility.

While I wish 5e had more in the way of new crunch (here we have the opposite situation: I believe they're evolving the game too slowly), I also feel somehow relieved that when WotC decides to release 6e, I'll probably carry most of my 5e library with me, should I decide to migrate. It's mainly setting stuff and modules that don't appear hard to convert at first glance.

 

[Jimmy Dick]

I'm eager to try PF2, but I also get the impression that what Paizo did was as if Steve Jackson Games decided to release a new edition of GURPS that alienated like 70-80% of people's previous purchases. When you have a huge library of heavy-crunch material like that and a heavily invested fanbase, I think you should be more cautious about evolving the system, trying to keep some backward compatibility.

While I wish 5e had more in the way of new crunch (here we have the opposite situation: I believe they're evolving the game too slowly), I also feel somehow relieved that when WotC decides to release 6e, I'll probably carry most of my 5e library with me, should I decide to migrate. It's mainly setting stuff and modules that don't appear hard to convert at first glance.

Backward compatibility was not possible for PF2. The new edition uses different math because the 1e math did not support game expansions very well which resulted in a broken system that catered to powergaming way too much. Also, the majority of the 1e base went to 2e. There are some who outright refuse to cross over, but that's not indicative of the majority of the players. Finally, we're growing more players who were not part of the 1e experience continually. There is just a overly loud misconception out there generated by a small number of people regarding 2e not being successful. It is very successful. I say that based on online players, players at the game stores I run Organized Play events at, the large volume of sales through the game stores according to the owners, and the number of PF2 products I watched get sold at Gen Con. It's a big hit.

 

[Prakriti]

Also, the majority of the 1e base went to 2e.

What do you base that on? Roll20's data suggests that there are still 4x as many PF1 players as PF2.

 

[Jester David]

There is just a overly loud misconception out there generated by a small number of people regarding 2e not being successful. It is very successful.

This is one of those finicky distinctions. PF2 is probably the second best selling RPG on the market and well above the 3rd and 4th best selling... but it's still below Pathfinder1 in terms of popularity.

Which really says more about the #3+ RPGs being sold... Because while Warhammer and Call of Cthulhu have more players, that's combining many editions.

 

[Jimmy Dick]

What do you base that on? Roll20's data suggests that there are still 4x as many PF1 players as PF2.

Roll20's data is not worth much in my opinion. I already discussed this earlier in a post. I said what I based it on.

 

[Prakriti]

Roll20's data is not worth much in my opinion. I already discussed this earlier in a post. I said what I based it on.

Right. So what is your statement (that most PF1 players switched to PF2) based on? Since you take issue with Roll20's methodology, I imagine your own data and methodology must adhere to very high standards. Why not share it with us?

 

[Jimmy Dick]

I already stated it, but if you really want me to say it again, I will.

I run and play Pathfinder Society. I organize live and online events. The online region is growing a lot of players and more of them are coming to PFS2. Also, PaizoCon GM signups are underway and PFS2 is getting the larger share of GM signups. We'll see more when the players sign up. Keep in mind that many are playing both systems, but only a small minority refused to play PFS2.