# Roll20's Latest Report Shows Growth Everywhere!



## Sunsword (May 6, 2020)

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of Pathfinder 1e vs 2e.


----------



## Morrus (May 6, 2020)

Sunsword said:


> It would be interesting to see the breakdown of Pathfinder 1e vs 2e.



4.49% vs 1.23%.


----------



## Hurin88 (May 6, 2020)

Thanks for all the stats -- very helpful!

I find it interesting that Rolemaster is doing better on Roll20 than Fantasy Grounds during the pandemic, given that support for Rolemaster is considerably better on Fantasy Grounds (which has a character sheet and tables) than on Roll20 (which IIRC only has a character sheet for the RMSS edition of the rules).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 6, 2020)

Notably, almost every game system, even popular ones, combine all the editions. 

For example, Cthulhu, Warhammer (which includes 40k and FRPG), the WoD games, Star Wars, etc.

But "D&D games" are broken out into:
D&D 5e (1st) 
Pathfinder (3rd)  - Ordinal rankings omit "uncategorized."
D&D 3.5e (4th)
Pathfinder 2 (6th)
AD&D (20th)
D&D 4e (22nd)

etc.

In addition, this shows how statistics with small numbers can be, on occasion, misleading.

HeroQuest has 4066% growth! Which is great!

But that puts them 76th on the ordinal list of named systems, with .03% of campaigns; after Paranoia, Runequest, and Godbound, and in the company of some RPGs whose names, I assume, have been made up in order to confuse me.


----------



## Jester David (May 6, 2020)

Always happy to see a spike in play for Star Trek Adventures. Like the system and the world. A personal fave.

(Which does also coincide with the launch of the Clear Skies streamed game on QueueTimes.)


----------



## DaveMage (May 6, 2020)

Amazing to me that 3.5 is still very much in the picture.  Really shows how much a mistake 4E was.


----------



## Superchunk77 (May 6, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> Amazing to me that 3.5 is still very much in the picture.  Really shows how much a mistake 4E was.




I've been debating running a 3.5 campaign again. Such a great system and it's flaws are easily mitigated.


----------



## Parmandur (May 6, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> Amazing to me that 3.5 is still very much in the picture.  Really shows how much a mistake 4E was.




AD&D has more of a VTT following than 4E... pretty astonishing.


----------



## Retreater (May 6, 2020)

I've enjoyed the few games of 4e I've played on VTT. It probably is better there than in person. 
I wish PF2 had a greater presence. I don't think it's getting its due. Personally I think the pandemic is really hurting it, as it's not getting time to be promoted and played in person at events and hobby shops. It didn't really have traction going into this and not a ton of support on VTT in general.


----------



## DWChancellor (May 6, 2020)

I wonder how many of the systems at the bottom of the list are just the designers testing them.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (May 6, 2020)

I am thinking, and I guess WotC will try to test some new ideas for the future Ravenloft to create its own version of "investigators against lovecraftian cults".


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 6, 2020)

Retreater said:


> I've enjoyed the few games of 4e I've played on VTT. It probably is better there than in person.
> I wish PF2 had a greater presence. I don't think it's getting its due. Personally I think the pandemic is really hurting it, as it's not getting time to be promoted and played in person at events and hobby shops. It didn't really have traction going into this and not a ton of support on VTT in general.




If you look at the full report PF2 actually grew 199% over last quarter (So almost doubled the number of games on Roll20). So it is a bit hard to compare quarter to quarter when there is so much exponential growth because of the Pandemic.


----------



## Jester David (May 6, 2020)

DWChancellor said:


> I wonder how many of the systems at the bottom of the list are just the designers testing them.



Well, a LOT of people use Roll20. A game that is 0.07% might have two or three dozen games played monthly. Or more. There's just that many more D&D games.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 6, 2020)

Retreater said:


> I've enjoyed the few games of 4e I've played on VTT. It probably is better there than in person.
> I wish PF2 had a greater presence. I don't think it's getting its due. Personally I think the pandemic is really hurting it, as it's not getting time to be promoted and played in person at events and hobby shops. It didn't really have traction going into this and not a ton of support on VTT in general.




I wish PF2 the best, but given that it was released last August and had middling success in the seven months prior to the pandemic really hitting things, I don't think you can blame its lack of presence on the current situation.

Choice and competition tends to make things better, so I hope it does well.


----------



## Morrus (May 6, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I wish PF2 the best, but given that it was released last August and had middling success in the seven months prior to the pandemic really hitting things, I don't think you can blame its lack of presence on the current situation.
> 
> Choice and competition tends to make things better, so I hope it does well.



Middling success? It was (and is) the second most popular RPG in the entire world!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 6, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Middling success? It was (and is) the second most popular RPG in the entire world!




Pathfinder *2* is the second most popular RPG?


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 6, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Pathfinder *2* is the second most popular RPG?




According to ICV2 and Amazon, yes.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 6, 2020)

JFranklin3000 said:


> According to ICV2 and Amazon, yes.




I didn't see ICV2 have any sales figure, or disambiguate between PF1 and 2.

As for Amazon-





						Amazon Best Sellers: Best Fantasy Gaming
					

Discover the best books in Amazon Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular Amazon books.



					www.amazon.com
				




Who knows. I guess it depends on definition of "popular...." Looking at Roll20 and other charts, I'm not seeing a lot of people _playing _PF2 in comparison to PF1 and D&D 3x, which I don't think bodes well.

But maybe I'm wrong. Happens all the time.


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 6, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I didn't see ICV2 have any sales figure, or disambiguate between PF1 and 2.
> 
> As for Amazon-
> 
> ...



ICV2 is not the best of course, but the release of the new CRB moved them back into the number 2 spot, where they have been since. 

#21 on the Amazon link is the CRB, and everything ahead of it is 5e, that would make it the 2nd best selling game. 

Like I said earlier it is hard to tell right now with the ridiculous growth of the VTTs due to the pandemic, but 2E double the number of games on Roll20 this quarter. (that is in the full report). Doesn't mean it will be a factor forever, but it is definitely still growing and less than a year old.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 6, 2020)

JFranklin3000 said:


> , but 2E double the number of games on Roll20 this quarter. (that is in the full report)




But everything did. That's the same as 5e, which has a much, much higher base to need doubling. FATE grew more than PF2.

In other words, PF2 really should have been exceeding that; that's just treading water.

Again, I want it to do well, but based on the metrics I've seen, _relative to how Paizo would likely want it to perform_, it looks like it is underperforming. Hope I am incorrect, and/or things change.


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 6, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But everything did. That's the same as 5e, which has a much, much higher base to need doubling. FATE grew more than PF2.
> 
> In other words, PF2 really should have been exceeding that; that's just treading water.
> 
> Again, I want it to do well, but based on the metrics I've seen, _relative to how Paizo would likely want it to perform_, it looks like it is underperforming. Hope I am incorrect, and/or things change.



They actually grew 20% faster than the platform, well it was exploding. That is actually hard to do. Thus why PF1 grew as well, but shrunk percentage wise.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 6, 2020)

JFranklin3000 said:


> They actually grew 20% faster than the platform, well it was exploding. That is actually hard to do. Thus why PF1 grew as well, but shrunk percentage wise.




....I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. It's like fun with statistics. HeroQuest grew 4066%! That's a lot more impressive. 

PF2, a system which is brand-new and should be experiencing massive growth (replacing PF1), had approximately the same growth as six-year old 5e (199% - 192%). 

I apologize if I'm not making my point very clearly, but I will try one more time:

1. Yes, they grew. 

2. They barely outperformed the overall average.

3. They are basically tied with 5e.

4. Usually, you see people moving on to a new system in the first six months.

5. As such, this is not a great sign. It does not appear that PF2 is either converting all of PF1 and D&D3 holdouts, nor does it appear to be attracting non-PF players (given that the decline in PF1 > the increase in PF2).

6. Again, lies, damn lies, and statistics, and it's not like the companies are telling us what is going on. But this has to be very disappointing. I hope I'm wrong, but we will see.

That is my point. I don't think I can explain it any better.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 6, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 4. Usually, you see people moving on to a new system in the first six months.



People, yes, but not all interested people.

Campaigns almost never end at exactly the right time to start up something you're interested in that just came out, and lots of folks don't like to convert an ongoing campaign to a new edition - especially when there are significant differences like in the case of the PF1 to PF2 change.

Heck, I've personally waited 2 or 3 years before finally starting up my first campaign of a game that I bought on release day just because of finishing up other campaigns I already had going or had already lined up to run.


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 6, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> ....I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. It's like fun with statistics. HeroQuest grew 4066%! That's a lot more impressive.
> 
> PF2, a system which is brand-new and should be experiencing massive growth (replacing PF1), had approximately the same growth as six-year old 5e (199% - 192%).
> 
> ...



I think the only point I disagree with is #4 other than 2 recent exceptions that kind of cheated (Pathfinder and 5e*) new system adoption often takes quite awhile, so growth is always what you are looking for. 

Well that and that PF didn't decline it grew slower than the site. If there were 10,000 games last quarter and 18,000 games this quarter (made up numbers but the announced growth percentage of the site). Pathfinder 1 would have had 497 games last quarter and 808 games this quarter. Growing 175ish%. PF 2 would have had 113 games last quarter and 221 games this quarter, 5 games short of doubling. 
PF cheated by having all of 3rd edition already out to use, and 5e cheated by killing off D&D for several years to create demand.


----------



## DaveMage (May 6, 2020)

D&D 3, PF1, and D&D5 came about because the players demanded these games.  4E and PF2 came out because the companies that made them demanded better financials (IMO).


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 6, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> D&D 3, PF1, and D&D5 came about because the players demanded these games.  4E and PF2 came out because the companies that made them demanded better financials (IMO).




That is bull crap, All games come around because the companies finances demand it.


----------



## imagineGod (May 7, 2020)

JFranklin3000 said:


> That is bull crap, All games come around because the companies finances demand it.



Companies financial teams may demand but it is the playing and paying public that finances those demands.

Truly shocking to see that D&D 4th is so terrible that it was abandoned at the first sign of D&D 5th.

Though, to confess, I was one of the holdouts that stayed behind on D&D3.5 then skipped straight to 5th edition, only keeping the core books of 4th as a collector's item.

Pathfinder 2nd edition may be much better than D&D 4th but suffering a similar problem with not enough Pathfinder 1st players upgrading and also not enough new players adopting it over or alongside D&D 5th.


----------



## Argyle King (May 7, 2020)

Hurin88 said:


> Thanks for all the stats -- very helpful!
> 
> I find it interesting that Rolemaster is doing better on Roll20 than Fantasy Grounds during the pandemic, given that support for Rolemaster is considerably better on Fantasy Grounds (which has a character sheet and tables) than on Roll20 (which IIRC only has a character sheet for the RMSS edition of the rules).




I've considered trying Rolemaster, but I am unsure which edition is current (or how to even acquire the books needed to play).


----------



## Hurin88 (May 7, 2020)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I've considered trying Rolemaster, but I am unsure which edition is current (or how to even acquire the books needed to play).




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.


----------



## TheSword (May 7, 2020)

There has to be an issues with 3 times as many players sticking with the old edition of pathfinder than play the second. Where do they put their resources? 

Stop producing 1st Ed materials and miss out in a huge part of their market. Fail to focus on 2nd ed though and people will never switch. I don’t envy them.

Glad to see more people on Warhammer though than Pathfinder 2nd Ed.


----------



## Aldarc (May 7, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> D&D 3, PF1, and D&D5 came about because the players demanded these games.  4E and PF2 came out because the companies that made them demanded better financials (IMO).



So WotC and Hasbro not demanding better financials was not responsible for 5e? Hmmm... I think that I smell a propagandist with an anti-4e and anti-PF2 agenda to sell.


----------



## dave2008 (May 7, 2020)

JFranklin3000 said:


> Like I said earlier it is hard to tell right now with the ridiculous growth of the VTTs due to the pandemic, but 2E double the number of games on Roll20 this quarter. (that is in the full report). Doesn't mean it will be a factor forever, but it is definitely still growing and less than a year old.



EDIT - already covered.


----------



## DaveMage (May 7, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> So WotC and Hasbro not demanding better financials was not responsible for 5e? Hmmm... I think that I smell a propagandist with an anti-4e and anti-PF2 agenda to sell.




No agenda - observation.  2E was bleeding players (or really, had bled players) thus 3E was a welcome refreshing of D&D and players came back.  3.5 was quite popular, but per Ryan Dancey, 4E was made in part due to financial ultimatums at WotC/Hasbro.  4E was also designed to encourage more buying of product (e.g. spreading out "standard" races and classes over PHB1 and PHB2.)  Players (in significant numbers - not every individual one, of course) rejected 4E and thus, since there were significant numbers of 3.5 players that loved the system, embraced PF1.  Many of those players welcomed 5E (again, as a refreshing of D&D).  I think many of us that started with D&D _want_ to love the current version of D&D, and thus 5E (especially with its embracing of past editions) is popular.  (Although, I do admit, I was skeptical that WotC could pull it off.  But they certainly did.)  Pathfinder 1E still has lots of fans, and I didn't see any significant evidence of demand for a new edition by players.  Obviously, WotC and Paizo must do what's best for their bottom lines, but the perceived lack of interest in PF2, likely has to do with the fact that players were not demanding a new edition, Paizo did.

None of this is to say that those designing 4E or PF2 were intending to make a game that didn't appeal - only that these new editions were not perceived as needed by the ones playing the current editions (3.5 or PF1) of the time.


----------



## dave2008 (May 7, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> None of this is to say that those designing 4E or PF2 were intending to make a game that didn't appeal - only that these new editions were not perceived as needed by the ones playing the current editions (3.5 or PF1) of the time.



 I don't know the numbers, but personally I completely skipped 3e/3.5e.  I didn't come back to D&D until 4e came out, which is much closer to the D&D this fan was asking for.  Now I'm playing basically as blend of 4e and 5e.


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 7, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> No agenda - observation.  2E was bleeding players (or really, had bled players) thus 3E was a welcome refreshing of D&D and players came back.  3.5 was quite popular, but per Ryan Dancey, 4E was made in part due to financial ultimatums at WotC/Hasbro.  4E was also designed to encourage more buying of product (e.g. spreading out "standard" races and classes over PHB1 and PHB2.)  Players (in significant numbers - not every individual one, of course) rejected 4E and thus, since there were significant numbers of 3.5 players that loved the system, embraced PF1.  Many of those players welcomed 5E (again, as a refreshing of D&D).  I think many of us that started with D&D _want_ to love the current version of D&D, and thus 5E (especially with its embracing of past editions) is popular.  (Although, I do admit, I was skeptical that WotC could pull it off.  But they certainly did.)  Pathfinder 1E still has lots of fans, and I didn't see any significant evidence of demand for a new edition by players.  Obviously, WotC and Paizo must do what's best for their bottom lines, but the perceived lack of interest in PF2, likely has to do with the fact that players were not demanding a new edition, Paizo did.
> 
> None of this is to say that those designing 4E or PF2 were intending to make a game that didn't appeal - only that these new editions were not perceived as needed by the ones playing the current editions (3.5 or PF1) of the time.




This is all really proving the point, 2e was bleeding players so a new edition was done to try to stop the hemorrhaging (financial decision). 4e was a financial decision, and at this point I think we can say a bad one. 5e was again a financial decision to bring people back to D&D. PF1 was hemorrhaging player's as well and most of the 3PP publishers had moved to making 5e products. So a financial decision was made to make a new edition. It is definitely too early to tell if this was a bad decision or not, 9 months and the first major player supplement isn't even out yet.


----------



## Morrus (May 7, 2020)

JFranklin3000 said:


> This is all really proving the point, 2e was bleeding players so a new edition was done to try to stop the hemorrhaging (financial decision).




The creation of 3E was a lot more complex than that. TSR had collapsed for a wide variety of reasons (and none of those were "2E is unpopular"), and WotC acquired it and started anew with their own iteration. There's tons to read on the internet about that, and the origins of 3E.


----------



## Retreater (May 7, 2020)

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).


----------



## Jimmy Dick (May 7, 2020)

The first thing to realize is this report is trash. It is not an accurate picture of what is being played. The data collection system doesn't come close to addressing what is actually being played. It seems to use character sheets made for an account. It doesn't bring time played with those sheets into the report and it even acknowledges that. If an account has sheets used for multiple game systems, then they all show up.

Here's another thing. A lot of PF2 games are Society play. Many GMs build tables with multiple scenarios on them and use them over and over again. They don't count correctly. I've got a table with 14 scenarios on it that I've used to run over 40 sessions. This report doesn't count each session ran. It seems to go by accounts and character sheets. That's not in any way an accurate measuring system. 

Another issue that the report doesn't tell us is what character sheets does it count. Does it only count official Roll20 sheets? What if there is no character sheet? What about hours played on an account? Why does it not factor that in? I typically average 50 to 100 hours a month in Roll20. There is no way you can give equal weight to a someone who only puts in 5 hours a month. 

This is just bad data.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 7, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> ...these new editions were not perceived as needed by the ones playing the current editions (3.5 or PF1) of the time.



Except me.

I was elated to hear that 4th edition D&D was coming and the claims it was going to fix all the issues I had with the then current edition. It turned out not to actually do what I wanted it to in the end for various reasons, but I definitely perceived 4th edition as needed.

Pathfinder 2nd didn't get as much of a reaction out of me because I have forced myself to temper my excitement of new games since 4th edition so that I don't have the same feeling of getting a bait and switch, but it was still announced at a point when I was finished wither Pathfinder 1st and definitely wasn't going to play it ever again despite that it had given me a way to satisfy my D&D cravings after putting 4th edition on the shelf for good. And it released at just the point when I'd gotten worn out by the way D&D 5th edition plays over long campaigns, so again I perceived a need for the new game.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 7, 2020)

Retreater said:


> 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 (May 7, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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 (May 8, 2020)

Hurin88 said:


> 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).
> ...




Thank you for the information.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (May 8, 2020)

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 (May 8, 2020)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> 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 (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> 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 (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> 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 (May 8, 2020)

Prakriti said:


> 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 (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> 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 (May 8, 2020)

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.


----------



## Jester David (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> 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.



...
So... Roll20 collects data from 40,00 games and Fantasy Grounds collects data from 50,000 games but you have an accurate reflection on the industry because you manage a dozen games?

I'm sure PaizoCon is doing well. It's a great opportunity for curious people to test the system. But it's also free and a low cost way for people to test the game. Whether or not it translates to increased regular games and sales is another issue.


----------



## DaveMage (May 8, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> And it released at just the point when I'd gotten worn out by the way D&D 5th edition plays over long campaigns, so again I perceived a need for the new game.




What wore you out?  (I haven't played much 5E, but while I've heard that people lament the lack of options (compared to 3.x, 4E, and PF1), I haven't heard anyone worn out by it.)  What caused you to lose enthusiasm?


----------



## Jester David (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> Here's another thing. A lot of PF2 games are Society play. Many GMs build tables with multiple scenarios on them and use them over and over again. They don't count correctly. I've got a table with 14 scenarios on it that I've used to run over 40 sessions. This report doesn't count each session ran. It seems to go by accounts and character sheets. That's not in any way an accurate measuring system.



Your argument is that it's bad because it doesn't count each individual session being played separately?

Also, wouldn't this apply equally to Adventurer's League, greatly increasing the number of D&D sessions?


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

As long as we're giving anecdotal evidence (and this is coming from someone who's actually invested in the system in hard copy, VTT, and running a campaign), my view is that the Roll20 stats are pretty accurate. Even before the pandemic, there was zero PF presence in my tristate area. Game stores don't carry it. There are no events. 
The fans may have rushed to buy PF2 at GenCon (like they do every Paizo release there), but there were pallets of unsold games and literal stacks of them being sold at discount at secondary sellers. There were so many no shows and unsold tickets at their official PF2 events that tables were cancelled at Origins. 
As much as I like the system, I still have to cede that it's not a runaway success. To compare it to 4E's reception isn't inaccurate, except that it doesn't have to live up to D&D's numbers.


----------



## Jimmy Dick (May 8, 2020)

AL would increase possibly. The report is not good data. It is not gathered in any real scientific manner.


----------



## Jimmy Dick (May 8, 2020)

Retreater said:


> As long as we're giving anecdotal evidence (and this is coming from someone who's actually invested in the system in hard copy, VTT, and running a campaign), my view is that the Roll20 stats are pretty accurate. Even before the pandemic, there was zero PF presence in my tristate area. Game stores don't carry it. There are no events.
> The fans may have rushed to buy PF2 at GenCon (like they do every Paizo release there), but there were pallets of unsold games and literal stacks of them being sold at discount at secondary sellers. There were so many no shows and unsold tickets at their official PF2 events that tables were cancelled at Origins.
> As much as I like the system, I still have to cede that it's not a runaway success. To compare it to 4E's reception isn't inaccurate, except that it doesn't have to live up to D&D's numbers.




Let's see, PF2 debuted at Gen Con with was a month AFTER Origins. It was not ran at Origins in 2019. Hard to cancel a table that didn't exist. 

In my area all the game stores carry PF2. All of the Org Play lodges are seeing growth in my region and in the adjoining regions. There are some places where the sales have been sabotaged by some people who have badmouthed the game without ever playing a single session of it. There are also many instances of game stores getting burned by the PLAYTEST who then chose not to stock PF2. Their loss.


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> Let's see, PF2 debuted at Gen Con with was a month AFTER Origins. It was not ran at Origins in 2019. Hard to cancel a table that didn't exist.
> 
> In my area all the game stores carry PF2. All of the Org Play lodges are seeing growth in my region and in the adjoining regions. There are some places where the sales have been sabotaged by some people who have badmouthed the game without ever playing a single session of it. There are also many instances of game stores getting burned by the PLAYTEST who then chose not to stock PF2. Their loss.



I was at Origins 2019. I can promise you that PF2 (playtest) events were definitely going on. My fiancee and I walked up to a table with generic tickets, no one else showed up. We were the only people at a table for that 2 hour window. To fill the table they got other GMs whose events were cancelled to play with us.


----------



## Jimmy Dick (May 8, 2020)

Retreater said:


> I was at Origins 2019. I can promise you that PF2 (playtest) events were definitely going on. My fiancee and I walked up to a table with generic tickets, no one else showed up. We were the only people at a table for that 2 hour window. To fill the table they got other GMs whose events were cancelled to play with us.




I can promise you that PF2 was not at Origins because the Playtest is not Second Edition. There were quite a few substantial changes made before PF2 was finally released. The sessions that were at Origins were Playtest rules sessions, not Pathfinder Second Edition sessions. I think they were the latest Goblin release for Free RPG Day. Please do not confuse the two because that's what a lot of people have done. 

To make you feel better though, I'm going to confirm that with the organizer of the Org Play for the Premier Cons. I also know there were no PF2 CRBs, Bestiaries, or any other PF2 books for sale at Origins.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 8, 2020)

Prakriti said:


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



roll20 having more PF1 games than PF2 games could come down to the current difference in support level, PF1 having the whole PRD free and ready to use in drag-and-drop fashion while PF2 has to be manually inputed by users or purchased. Either way, it's important to remember that Roll20 reports only tell us what they tell us - which isn't how well PF2 has been picked up by the hobby community in general.

I, for example, have been playing PF2 since it launched but my own Roll20 stats would not say that because I'm not using their platform to do it.



DaveMage said:


> What wore you out?  (I haven't played much 5E, but while I've heard that people lament the lack of options (compared to 3.x, 4E, and PF1), I haven't heard anyone worn out by it.)  What caused you to lose enthusiasm?



It came down to three major factors that I kept encountering slowly sucking the fun out of the game. In no particular order: 

I was running published adventures, and they weren't holding up to my expectations of professionally published material. Adventure hooks would dead end without any warning, encounters didn't even remotely follow encounter building guidelines, and there were far too many moments like this: 2 books were sold as being meant to be used together to create a full-length campaign. The tie between them? Nothing. The characters would be the right level to start the second book at the end of the first, and they'd get what seemed like a lead to draw them in, but there was no pay off - but the players wouldn't know that, so they'd probably play the second book long enough to forget that lead entirely, and keep on for no reason other than "well, we got this far already."

Then I went to read Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus because the premise sounded amazing, and what I read sounded exactly like someone's recounting of a terrible campaign that happened when they were 12 and playing with a DM that hadn't learned better practices than beat-down enforced rail-roading.

Also, I watched my players not be excited by gaining levels. The campaign reached high enough level that all the important choices had already been made levels ago so now each level was just an increase in HP and the occasional other increase here or there. But when I said "time to level up" and more players let out sighs than not, and the rest basically didn't react at all, it sucked - as a GM most of my enjoyment of running a game is seeing the players having a good time.

And that leaves combat. With the particulars of attack bonus vs. AC values, and damage vs. HP totals, combat started to feel very odd to me. Everyone was almost always succeeding, but those successes didn't have much effect. This was especially exaggerated in my second to last campaign I ran because many of the foes faced were of the big & tough variety (giants, dragons, etc.) so their HP totals were especially high. My players didn't much seem to mind it, but when I'd get to the 4th or 5th time taking a turn for a monster and having very little for it to do that couldn't be phrased "It keeps at it" I'd start to convince myself that maybe the players were bored too but were hiding it because they thought I'd be offended.


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> I can promise you that PF2 was not at Origins because the Playtest is not Second Edition. There were quite a few substantial changes made before PF2 was finally released. The sessions that were at Origins were Playtest rules sessions, not Pathfinder Second Edition sessions. I think they were the latest Goblin release for Free RPG Day. Please do not confuse the two because that's what a lot of people have done.
> 
> To make you feel better though, I'm going to confirm that with the organizer of the Org Play for the Premier Cons. I also know there were no PF2 CRBs, Bestiaries, or any other PF2 books for sale at Origins.



The book discounts were at GenCon (I attended both Cons in 2019). And I did say that the "playtest" events at Origins were sparsely attended, which I think speaks a bit about overall enthusiasm for an upcoming edition that the preview events were virtually empty. (No need to confirm with anyone there. I know they weren't full-on Pathfinder 2. I even said so in my original post. Also, it wasn't one of the Goblins adventures.)
However, I think the empty playtest tables indicated that there was little interest at Origins for Pathfinder (whether it was the Playtest or the upcoming 2E). One would think fans would be chomping at the bit to see it in action. I'm currently running PF2 myself (probably the only person running it within a 50 mile radius of my town), so I know pretty well the differences between the actual game and the Playtest (which I also bought and ran). 
So in my experience. In my area. From what I'm seeing on my VTT service - all these caveats - PF2 isn't getting the attention it deserves. If you think it's a great system, you shouldn't be disagreeing with me. Is it surviving? Maybe. Is it a huge success? No way.


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

@AaronOfBarbaria , yep. The old 5e issue: monsters are just bags of hit points. The game is only really good for a couple of levels. Gold is worthless. Characters can survive ungodly challenges.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 8, 2020)

Retreater said:


> So in my experience. In my area. From what I'm seeing on my VTT service - all these caveats - PF2 isn't getting the attention it deserves. If you think it's a great system, you shouldn't be disagreeing with me. Is it surviving? Maybe. Is it a huge success? No way.



The issue with treating data the way you are treating it is that your anecdote vs. my anecdote has no clear answer which one is in line with more anecdotes than the other, so we don't actually have enough evidence between us (even among this whole forum with the roll20 reports to boot) to accurately answer the question "Is it a huge success?" one way or the other.


----------



## Prakriti (May 8, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The issue with treating data the way you are treating it is that your anecdote vs. my anecdote has no clear answer which one is in line with more anecdotes than the other, so we don't actually have enough evidence between us (even among this whole forum with the roll20 reports to boot) to accurately answer the question "Is it a huge success?" one way or the other.



There are other metrics, though, such as Amazon sales data. Combined, these various data can paint a fairly accurate picture.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 8, 2020)

Prakriti said:


> There are other metrics, though, such as Amazon sales data. Combined, these various data can paint a fairly accurate picture.



Clearly that's not the case, since this thread contains people convinced of the opposite conclusion from what Amazon sales data suggests.

Plus, we don't even know if Amazon is a larger or smaller portion of Pathfinder sales than those done directly, so even trying to treat that data as indicating anything except how well the game is selling specifically on Amazon is likely to be inaccurate and guaranteed to be speculation.


----------



## Prakriti (May 8, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Clearly that's not the case, since this thread contains people convinced of the opposite conclusion from what Amazon sales data suggests.



To be frank, I don't think such people can be taken seriously, unless they have equally valid data (i.e. not anecdotal evidence) to support their claims.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 8, 2020)

These reports are always annoyIng as they never report how many games so you can track from quarter to quarter. The Fantasy Grounds reports are much better.


----------



## Morrus (May 8, 2020)

Retreater said:


> The book discounts were at GenCon (I attended both Cons in 2019). And I did say that the "playtest" events at Origins were sparsely attended, which I think speaks a bit about overall enthusiasm for an upcoming edition that the preview events were virtually empty. (No need to confirm with anyone there. I know they weren't full-on Pathfinder 2. I even said so in my original post. Also, it wasn't one of the Goblins adventures.)
> However, I think the empty playtest tables indicated that there was little interest at Origins for Pathfinder (whether it was the Playtest or the upcoming 2E). One would think fans would be chomping at the bit to see it in action.



Anecdotes, anecdotes. At UK Games Expo in 2019 all the playtest tables were packed for the whole three days, with a waiting list. Everybody has their anecdotes, and everybody thinks their own anecdote extrapolates to the whole world, but when anecdotes directly contradict each other, where does that leave us?


----------



## DaveMage (May 8, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Anecdotes, anecdotes. At UK Games Expo in 2019 all the playtest tables were packed for the whole three days, with a waiting list. Everybody has their anecdotes, and everybody thinks their own anecdote extrapolates to the whole world, but when anecdotes directly contradict each other, where does that leave us?




That the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Porridge (May 8, 2020)

Since Fantasy Grounds does a much better job of supporting PF (both editions) than Roll20, I think their quarterly release information (which Morrus helpfully posted here) is probably a more accurate guide to PF trends. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I apologize if I'm not making my point very clearly, but I will try one more time:
> 
> 1. Yes, they grew.
> 
> ...




One interesting thing regarding the Fantasy Grounds data is that it suggests #5 is only half true. 

It does look like the release of PF2 didn't do much to decrease PF1 game sessions -- they only decreased by about 20%*. So that's a point in favor of thinking that a lot of PF1 players haven't converted to PF2, as #5 says.

That said, the total PF pie (PF1+PF2 combined) grew a fair bit with the release of PF2 -- the total pie increased by about 40%*. That suggests that PF2 drew in a bunch of players from somewhere. And if they didn't come from PF1 (as the first bit of data suggests), then they must have come from other TTRPGs and people new to TTRPGs. 



Spoiler: *



(These estimates exclude the month of PF2's release, which gave PF2 a non-representative "new game" bump, and exclude the crazy March bump, which would throw off all the numbers.)





Jimmy Dick said:


> The data collection system doesn't come close to addressing what is actually being played. It seems to use character sheets made for an account. It doesn't bring time played with those sheets into the report and it even acknowledges that. If an account has sheets used for multiple game systems, then they all show up.
> 
> Here's another thing. A lot of PF2 games are Society play. Many GMs build tables with multiple scenarios on them and use them over and over again. They don't count correctly. I've got a table with 14 scenarios on it that I've used to run over 40 sessions. This report doesn't count each session ran. It seems to go by accounts and character sheets. That's not in any way an accurate measuring system.




Is that right? If so, that's good to know (and somewhat disappointing). I would think total hours played is the most interesting statistic. And it's a shame they're not tracking that.

(It looks like the Fantasy Grounds data is counting "number of game sessions", which is better.)


----------



## Jester David (May 8, 2020)

Jimmy Dick said:


> I can promise you that PF2 was not at Origins because the Playtest is not Second Edition. There were quite a few substantial changes made before PF2 was finally released.



Not really...
There were changes, but they were hardly substantial. Removing resonance and small balance tweaks didn't make it into a different game. Rebalancing of spells, revisions of classes, etc.

There were arguably as more changes made between 3.0 and 3.5 or 3.5 (or even 3.5 to PF1) but I wouldn't say "substantial changes", let alone enough changes to make it more appealing to people who disliked the previous version.  



AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Clearly that's not the case, since this thread contains people convinced of the opposite conclusion from what Amazon sales data suggests.
> 
> Plus, we don't even know if Amazon is a larger or smaller portion of Pathfinder sales than those done directly, so even trying to treat that data as indicating anything except how well the game is selling specifically on Amazon is likely to be inaccurate and guaranteed to be speculation.



Paizo has said many times that their direct sales are significantly less than what is sold over Amazon. Because the lower price of books, faster delivery, and much, much, MUCH lower shipping prices attract buyers.

Another metric: Kickstarter. What's the biggest Kickstarter for a 3rd Party Pathfinder 2nd Edition product?


Honestly, the PF2 situation really reminds me a lot of 4th Edition and discussing it vs Pathfinder over on the WotC boards. All these people coming in and saying how 4e was dead in their town, how PF was doing better on Amazon, and the like. And the 4e fans being "nuh-uh, 4e is doing fine. WotC said it sold better than 3e and launch. And the CEO of WotC is talking about how happy they are with sales."

PF2 was always going to have an uphill battle to compete against PF1 and the players that didn't want change or were invested in the libraries of books they bought. And replacing holdovers with new players is hard when 5e has become a juggernaut and is attracting all the attention. 
It's not really a suprise that it had an initial surge that slowed down. 

The question isn't "is PF1 more popular than PF2" but "is the smaller sales of PF2 still enough to sustain Paizo?" And really, the answer is "probably". If they keep their staff restrained and are wise with their money. Because even selling far less than PF1 numbers still makes PF2 more successful that most other RPGs on the market.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 8, 2020)

Jester David said:


> Paizo has said many times that their direct sales are significantly less than what is sold over Amazon. Because the lower price of books, faster delivery, and much, much, MUCH lower shipping prices attract buyers.



Interesting, given how folks seem dead set on the whole "I buy the hardcopy and I get the PDF too" thing, including it constantly being brought up as a negative point against WOTC that they don't offer that like Paizo does, if most folks buy Pathfinder don't actually get that either.


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Interesting, given how folks seem dead set on the whole "I buy the hardcopy and I get the PDF too" thing, including it constantly being brought up as a negative point against WOTC that they don't offer that like Paizo does, if most folks buy Pathfinder don't actually get that either.



True, but at least we get a free character builder app, online rules of everything, etc. The tools available for Pathfinder online (with the exception of Roll20) far exceeds D&D.


----------



## Jester David (May 8, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Interesting, given how folks seem dead set on the whole "I buy the hardcopy and I get the PDF too" thing, including it constantly being brought up as a negative point against WOTC that they don't offer that like Paizo does, if most folks buy Pathfinder don't actually get that either.



It’s almost like the people arguing about those points on forums are a minority and non-representative of gamers as a whole.

Also, free PDFs only applies to subscribers. You need to buy separately otherwise, so you might as well get it off Amazon.


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The issue with treating data the way you are treating it is that your anecdote vs. my anecdote has no clear answer which one is in line with more anecdotes than the other, so we don't actually have enough evidence between us (even among this whole forum with the roll20 reports to boot) to accurately answer the question "Is it a huge success?" one way or the other.



Very true. My anecdote is only one of many and should not be taken larger than anyone else's. And anecdotes are only one measure and give an incomplete picture of how widely the system is being adopted. For example, in Morrus's area it seems to be going pretty well. And it might have been that I went to an Origins event at an unpopular time and maybe most other Pathfinder Playtest events were packed. 
I am not an industry insider. I am a fan, and my anecdotes are more like those of trained weather spotters who see cloud rotation and report storms in their immediate area. I can say PF2 isn't doing great at being widely adopted in these parts (which I would classify as the American Midwest).  
My group, so far, is having a mixed reaction. I get a little frustrated running it, partially because I get confused because of the similarities and differences between PF1, D&D5, and PF2, and also due to the lack of integration into Roll20 (which I am using solely for play these days). Out of my current 4 player group, I would say two are really enjoying it, one sees potential in it once she learns the system (and thinks she'll prefer it to D&D5), and one guy who dislikes learning new systems and prefers PF1.


----------



## Mournblade94 (May 8, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> Amazing to me that 3.5 is still very much in the picture.  Really shows how much a mistake 4E was.



I still Play 3rd edition.  I run one 5e game because people want to fiddle the rules.  But I vastly prefer 3rd edition with some things from Pathfinder.


----------



## Mournblade94 (May 8, 2020)

DWChancellor said:


> I wonder how many of the systems at the bottom of the list are just the designers testing them.



I'm one of the 0.02% In HERO


----------



## Retreater (May 8, 2020)

Jester David said:


> It’s almost like the people arguing about those points on forums are a minority and non-representative of gamers as a whole.
> 
> Also, free PDFs only applies to subscribers. You need to buy separately otherwise, so you might as well get it off Amazon.



I think you get a small discount on Roll20 if you buy Paizo products and have your Roll20 account linked to your Paizo account, so that's something. Not the same as getting a free PDF, but it helps. 
Thought I'd add this since I'm complaining so much about PF2 on Roll20.


----------



## Mournblade94 (May 8, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> ....I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. It's like fun with statistics. HeroQuest grew 4066%! That's a lot more impressive.
> 
> PF2, a system which is brand-new and should be experiencing massive growth (replacing PF1), had approximately the same growth as six-year old 5e (199% - 192%).
> 
> ...




I know personally the only reason I played PF was because it was 3.5.  When they switched to a new system there was no reason for me to switch to the system.  If I wanted a new system I'd just stick with 5th edition.  The change to PF2 makes sense from a business perspective, but I wasn't about to switch because I have a full library of 3rd edition books, and AD&D book that I can't use with PF2.


----------



## JFranklin3000 (May 8, 2020)

I will say it is probably too early to know where this edition will end up. 9 months is really not that much time to get an idea of where the system will end up. 4e for example was still ahead of PF, 9 months after it was released. PF1's big explosion started after the APG was released. Not that PF2 will do the same this time around with 5e on the market, but I think we are really a year or two away from really knowing how this will shake out. Most game systems to hit there stride in a short time (5e and PF being 2 recent exceptions).


----------



## Jimmy Dick (May 9, 2020)

I'd say a lot of people have drawn erroneous conclusions based on what they want the results to be and are ignoring the reality of the world around them. But I can't change your minds. All I can do is to continue running and playing PFS2 sessions with the growing audience of players, the players who switched over from 1e totally, the players who play both editions, and then run sessions at the cons where 2e continues to overtake and pass 1e table counts. 

We saw an extremely large and enthusiastic crowd at Gen Con last year. We saw the books practically sell out. We continue to see the online region grow for PFS2. If you can't handle those facts, then I'm not going to argue when your position is not based on facts, but rather on what you want to believe. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Reynard (May 10, 2020)

Jester David said:


> It’s almost like the people arguing about those points on forums are a minority and non-representative of gamers as a whole.
> 
> Also, free PDFs only applies to subscribers. You need to buy separately otherwise, so you might as well get it off Amazon.



Or do both. I prefer to support my FLGS, but either way you can buy a dead tree version from whatever place meets your needs and then buy the PDF from Paizo. And in you want to use FG, the price of that PDF comes off the price of the FG module, which is super generous of them.


----------



## Morrus (May 10, 2020)

Retreater said:


> For example, in Morrus's area it seems to be going pretty well.




That's not quite what I said. I said at one convention in June 2019, the tables were packed. I can't speak for the country as a whole.


----------



## Aldarc (May 10, 2020)

DaveMage said:


> That the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.



Of course that could also be a false middle.


----------



## macd21 (May 11, 2020)

Porridge said:


> That said, the total PF pie (PF1+PF2 combined) grew a fair bit with the release of PF2 -- the total pie increased by about 40%*. That suggests that PF2 drew in a bunch of players from somewhere. And if they didn't come from PF1 (as the first bit of data suggests), then they must have come from other TTRPGs and people new to TTRPGs.




I think it’s more likely that the increase is due to PF1 players who weren’t running a campaign when PF2 came out deciding to start one with the new system. They may have been ‘lapsed’ PF1 players, or people who just held off on starting a campaign because they were waiting for the new edition to come out.

And it’s those kind of factors that make the Roll20 stats a dubious way to draw conclusions about the overall hobby.


----------



## Jester David (May 11, 2020)

Porridge said:


> That said, the total PF pie (PF1+PF2 combined) grew a fair bit with the release of PF2 -- the total pie increased by about 40%*. That suggests that PF2 drew in a bunch of players from somewhere. And if they didn't come from PF1 (as the first bit of data suggests), then they must have come from other TTRPGs and people new to TTRPGs.



It _could_ also be from people who want to play PF2 but whose in person games are still PF1 or 5e. Or who can't find a game in real life.

I know I went to Roll20 to play _Star Trek Adventures_ because I wanted to play that game but finding a meat space group was unlikely. 

Or it could easily have come from 5e fans who were lapsed PF1 fans returning to Paizo. A 40% increase in PF numbers wouldn't even offset the new 5e players added in that time period.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 11, 2020)

Jester David said:


> I know I went to Roll20 to play _Star Trek Adventures_ because I wanted to play that game but finding a meat space group was unlikely.



This is kinda what I use Roll20 for: finding games for RPGs that I can't easily find a group for in order to test a game out and see if I'd like it.


----------



## LotsOfLore (Sep 17, 2020)

Wow... I'll add my anecdotal evidence to the pool, even though it's just that: me (mostly GM) and my players (friends from Italy and Spain) went from PF1 to PF2. It took us one session to realise how incredibly better the new edition is with respect to the previous.
We have never felt the need to go back to PF1. In fact if someone asks me to play or run a 1st ed adventure I reply that I would gladly convert it to PF2 first . I personally wouldn't go back to PF1 even if they paid me.
Some of my friends still play D&D 5e, but they are mostly switching to pf2.
I also play Starfinder with different friends. I love it to bits even though I suffer its unrefined still 1e burdened system


----------



## Caliburn101 (Dec 29, 2020)

D&D is becoming the Amazon of ttrpgs - hoovering up the competition by forcing them to make their unique games '5e Compatible' Even Trudvangr is doing it now. If you don't use 5e you cannot sell your products... If this goes on for much longer there won't be much left by way of system originality with anything remotely close to higher levels of ongoing support as all the oxygen in the market will have been snaffled by WoTC. I don't see this as healthy at all...


----------



## darjr (Dec 29, 2020)

That's kinda always been true. Almost. 

But see Call of Cthulhu on the rise. Other companies seem to be doing great too. And if the rising tide makes for succesfull other 5e companies, that is good in the long run.


----------



## embee (Dec 29, 2020)

Caliburn101 said:


> D&D is becoming the Amazon of ttrpgs - hoovering up the competition by forcing them to make their unique games '5e Compatible' Even Trudvangr is doing it now. If you don't use 5e you cannot sell your products... If this goes on for much longer there won't be much left by way of system originality with anything remotely close to higher levels of ongoing support as all the oxygen in the market will have been snaffled by WoTC. I don't see this as healthy at all...



On the other hand, World of Darkness was a real thing. It succeeded and thrived at a time when "role-playing game" meant Dungeons & Dragons. Same with Call of Cthulhu. 

Consider D&D's sister title - Magic: The Gathering. MTG was, and still is, the 800 lb. gorilla of CCGs. But there was a huge variety of other CCGs available right in the middle of MTG's heyday. And just as the 90s had White Wolf and Chaosium, look at Modiphius' ever growing portfolio of games. They're not hurting. They're doing well enough to keep being able to buy rights to IP. 

No RPG will ever have what D&D had - notoriety. The media and Congress gave D&D free advertising through the 80s. The Satanic Panic made D&D a cultural touchstone. That is an invaluable asset. However, what does exist now is POD, crowdsourcing, and the ability to self-publish. 

Also, let's not forget quite possibly the greatest thing that WOTC did: the OGL. That was WOTC's doing.


----------



## Superchunk77 (Dec 29, 2020)

Caliburn101 said:


> D&D is becoming the Amazon of ttrpgs - hoovering up the competition by forcing them to make their unique games '5e Compatible' Even Trudvangr is doing it now. If you don't use 5e you cannot sell your products... If this goes on for much longer there won't be much left by way of system originality with anything remotely close to higher levels of ongoing support as all the oxygen in the market will have been snaffled by WoTC. I don't see this as healthy at all...



That's interesting to note as I tend to avoid 5e stuff and spend my money on other more intuitive games, especially ones where the rules mesh well with the setting. When a company converts their game over to 5e they lose some of that uniqueness in favor of more generic fantasy rules in the hopes of higher profit margins.


----------



## darjr (Dec 29, 2020)

D&D has benefited from a lot of marketing and advertising through the years too. There was a time if you ran D&D for WotC you got special paints of mini's and dice and terrain and printed adventures you couldn't get anywhere else. Those games ran in stores all over the world on a regular Wednesday night. No other RPG company could even begin to consider such a thing.

The longest running and most successful RPG periodical was Dragon Magazine, compounding the support for D&D, other rpg companies could maybe get an article every once in a while. Sure there was White Dwarf but I don't think it was an RPG magazine for very long at least over it's lifetime.

Even when D&D is in the dumps it's famous for being so, i.e. vs Vampire, people who never touch D&D or would never touch it knew what it was. Or it's main competitor is ANOTHER VERSION of D&D, Pathfinder, or all those older version books STILL being put to good use by players. I mean if you can't get a vast number of players to move from AD&D are you really going to get them to move to different RPG?

Then there is the Satanic Panic. Not many things get that kind of publicity. What did? Rock n Roll? OK then, my point proven.

Then there is the OGL, Hasbro and Magic allowing D&D to survive despite events or whatever.

And we haven't even begun to talk about the on line play, starting with PAX and then Critical Role.

And then WotC catching lighting in a bottle with 5e. They didn't expect it to be a once in a lifetime kind of hit. Don't get me wrong, they were proud of what they built and with good reason. But when that first print of the PHB sold out in mere days and Amazon was practically screaming for more copies it was clear they had no idea what they'd done. Shock at WotC. They were stunned, and are still a wonder at how well it continues to do. And that was well BEFORE Critical Role, but after PAX.

I think 5e is the closest to an UR version of D&D than any other version of D&D.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 31, 2020)

Caliburn101 said:


> D&D is becoming the Amazon of ttrpgs - hoovering up the competition by forcing them to make their unique games '5e Compatible' Even Trudvangr is doing it now. If you don't use 5e you cannot sell your products... If this goes on for much longer there won't be much left by way of system originality with anything remotely close to higher levels of ongoing support as all the oxygen in the market will have been snaffled by WoTC. I don't see this as healthy at all...



Not really. There are plenty of non-5e games out there. There are some that are increasing their player base by releasing 5e versions - this can give a new lease of life to a game that would otherwise be dying off. But I’ve also seen the same done using Savage Worlds. And there are still plenty of new RPGs coming out with different systems. The current trend of 5e compatible games is nothing compared to the D20 glut.

I also think it’s great for the hobby overall, as it gets people playing RPGs that aren’t DnD. Sure, it’s 5e compatible, but getting someone to play a 5e compatible Cyberpunk game opens them up to the RPG world beyond DnD (and beyond WotC). It exposes them to the greater potential of RPGs. And if that game has a non-5e version, it may be a stepping stone to other systems.


----------



## aramis erak (Jan 1, 2021)

In re 4e and it's popularity...
4e wasn't actually a flop overall - but it was largely unpopular with 3.x fans. I recall seeing a survey which found that about 1/10 of 3.x players switched to 4e... and that they comprised roughly 1/3 of 4E players. Which, as an edition switch, was semi-painful,  it was still enough to keep making a profit. That's the ultimate measure of a new edition: it brought in new blood, and it made a profit. (Traveller had a similar result in the switch from CT and MT to TNE... most TNE players hadn't played CT nor MT, and most CT or MT players didn't switch.)

Given that, I suspect the PF1 to PF2 transition is going to shake out to be similar. Most of the PF1 crowd will stick with it, but those who switch will largely be bringing fresh blood in as well.

Anecdotally, most of the pathfinder fans I know like 2e. Some like it, but not as well as PF1... others prefer PF2 (including at least 2 of the FLGS ownership {at least three, I think it may be four, owners} for my local one...). Most of them are willing to play either, but run one or the other. I know one guy who does indeed like PF1 and hate PF2... but he's not gaming at present. (Brain tumor, going downhill fast.)



Johnny3D3D said:


> I've considered trying Rolemaster, but I am unsure which edition is current (or how to even acquire the books needed to play).



The following 4 are the core for the "Classic" version. If you don't want magic, you can start with just arms law and character law. Critters and treasures is for opponents and magic items. Spell Law is the core magic.
Arms Law: Rolemaster Classic Arms Law - Iron Crown Enterprises | Rolemaster Classic | DriveThruRPG.com
Character Law: Rolemaster Classic Character Law - Iron Crown Enterprises | Rolemaster Classic | DriveThruRPG.com
Spell Law: Rolemaster Classic Spell Law - Iron Crown Enterprises | Rolemaster Classic | DriveThruRPG.com
Creatures and Treasures Rolemaster Classic: Creatures & Treasures - Iron Crown Enterprises | Rolemaster Classic | DriveThruRPG.com


----------



## Caliburn101 (Jan 10, 2021)

macd21 said:


> Not really. There are plenty of non-5e games out there. There are some that are increasing their player base by releasing 5e versions - this can give a new lease of life to a game that would otherwise be dying off. But I’ve also seen the same done using Savage Worlds. And there are still plenty of new RPGs coming out with different systems. The current trend of 5e compatible games is nothing compared to the D20 glut.
> 
> I also think it’s great for the hobby overall, as it gets people playing RPGs that aren’t DnD. Sure, it’s 5e compatible, but getting someone to play a 5e compatible Cyberpunk game opens them up to the RPG world beyond DnD (and beyond WotC). It exposes them to the greater potential of RPGs. And if that game has a non-5e version, it may be a stepping stone to other systems.



I was referring to the volume of reported play in different systems. Sure, other platforms sell good online, but Amazon takes nearly all the oxygen and the point is sound.

Your point about people playing other rpg's that aren't DnD is not born out by the figures I am afraid, and the sheer number of 5e conversions reflects this - the d20 mechanic, which is by no means the most elegant or interesting out there is becoming dominant due to market forces and streaming media and the name of D&D.

If you think that sort of hegemonic monopoly is healthy then I guess we differ drastically in our points of view.


----------

