What do people play more of nowadays?

Shemeska · Jun 15, 2010

Shadowrun (3rd) and 3.x D&D. I'm not currently running, but the next one I do will be Pathfinder (3.P).

haakon1 · Jun 15, 2010

I'm running two campaigns of 3.5e, using RAW rule with just the PHB, DMG, Deities book, Greyhawk book, and monster books.

I'm playing in a 4e campaign, but I'm not into it yet.

Argyle King · Jun 15, 2010

Sylrae said:
Now, I don't want to see the arguments for/against, I just wanted to see if I could get a general Idea about something.

How many people have mostly switched over to 4e, how many are playing 3e/3.5, how many are playing a 3.5 derivative like pathfinder, true20, or what have you? and if you mostly play other games, do you play white wolf type games, 1e-esque like castles and crusades, savage worlds or something else entirely (please specify).

I'm trying to group by similarity as much as possible, but I'm sure I didn't cover everyone. Still, I'm curious to see what the big preferences are nowadays.

re-reading the thread, I realized that I didn't answer some of the questions

Originally I did switch to 4E. However, while there were aspects of 4E which I felt were very good, it, overall, wasn't matching up very well with what I wanted out of a game. At first I was ok with it, but, as more products came out, it seemed to move further away from what I wanted, so I then started experimenting with other systems and eventually settled on GURPS.

I do still participate in 4E games on occasion, but it's been probably a month or two since I've played in a 4E game. I introduced the group I regularly game with to GURPS via a game I ran, and now it has replaced 4E as the system of choice for the group. I imagine we will still play D&D 4E games in the future, but, for the time being, the campaigns which are being run aren't 4E and probably won't be for a little while.

I've been talking to a few people about trying Pathfinder. I'm open to trying the system. It seems to be fairly popular here where I live too; I know the owner of the local gamestore seems to be rather pleased with how it is selling here.

I suppose you might say I plan to run a D&D 4E game when it's my turn to DM for one of the groups I play with. As an experiment, I want to convert Keep On The Shadowfell into GURPS. It will be the group's first experience with a fantasy game under the system, so I'm starting with a few familiar elements. At the moment, I'm contemplating using the adventure as a way to swoop a few D&D elements (including the PCs) into a Banestorm campaign. I imagine it won't be too hard to tweak Keep On The Shadowfell into something involving a Banestorm. I'm still undecided though; I'm trying to put some thought into how this would play out - knowing what I know of the setting.

I highly enjoy the story elements of 4E. However, there are a lot of types of stories, encounters, and tropes I want to use and emphasize which don't tend to match up very well with the elements that 4E's mechanical structure tends to emphasis on. None of this is intended to be a slant against D&D 4E; just trying to provide a little insight into why I find myself using the system that I do, and why I went from being someone who originally did convert to 4E only to then mostly drop D&D completely in favor of something else which I previously had no experience with. Hopefully this will help to answer some of your questions.

LizChai · Jun 15, 2010

WoD

Hehe, well it is funny to be one of the only people who voted that they play WoD the most. I love the system (the old one that is, I think New WoD is a load of BS... then again the whole promethean idea is awesome... but watering down & combing all the Vampire clans

okay enough rambling in brackets!) & I don't think I would keep rp'ing as much as I do if I couldn't play it ^_^.

However, I also play a lot of 4ed D&D as a lot of my friends like that as well.

Dice4Hire · Jun 15, 2010

I cannot really decide between 4E and 3.5 now, so I abstained.

Herschel · Jun 15, 2010

BryonD said:
"Noticibly" is a qualitative term, so maybe.

But the trend has clearly been away from that and near equity seems to be the norm.

For example, at this moment 4E has 189, Legacy has 170 and Pathfinder 23.

Throw in house rules to each group and it becomes 4e: 258; Other: 235

Not that *THAT* means anything either.
But the statement is not accurate.

Except "Legacy" also encompasses OD&D, 1E and 2E, so not all of the viewers (and saying most would be an educated guess) there can be attributed as 3E either.

That's why getting any relevent info from the site is night impossible for the question at hand.

BryonD · Jun 15, 2010

Herschel said:
Except "Legacy" also encompasses OD&D, 1E and 2E, so not all of the viewers (and saying most would be an educated guess) there can be attributed as 3E either.

That's why getting any relevent info from the site is night impossible for the question at hand.

You are the one who called them the "3E/Pathfinder forums". Call them whatever you want, it doesn't change the inaccuracy of your prior statement.

That said, it is interesting that you call virtually equal views "noticibly more" on the one hand, and yet well over 90% of the "legacy" threads being 3E you don't credit....

Zhaleskra · Jun 15, 2010

Other and 3e/3.5.

Herschel · Jun 15, 2010

I never credited the Legacy forum with well over 90% for 3E, that's a number you assigned.

I'm sorry if you feel like your belevoved 3E is being attacked Byron, but my point is that any poll numbers in the general forum aren't accurate for any real statistical purposes and there are enough loopholes in other measures that makes it really tough to tell anything about who is playing what from the site.

No matter how you slice it, the 4E forums have generally more viewers, and noticibly more so unless you fudge the 3E numbers by including all of Legacy. But as I said, that also doesn't mean much because 1E/2E/3E/4E/PiE/WhateverE also have the general forum to siphon viewers/visitors and can skew numbers.

Iow, my whole point is there are a dozen ways to take numbers to try and make a point but that doesn't mean they're accurate and aren't refuted by others. This poll could be 90% "Pro-3E" and still be statistically meaningless outside of "people who visited the general forum, actually decided to open the thread and actually make a response." It's sub-groups of sub-groups and not scientifically random.