Popularity of 3.5E/PF over 4E/5E

[Nifft]

I wonder what could change to allow groups to have lag as low as games like Starcraft or WoW.

Or those console FPS games which have voice-over so the 12-year-old spawn-camper who shot you in the back can call you racial slurs while his avatar teabags your (dead) avatar.

Are there some kind of ISP shenanigans going on to allow big-name games low-lag connections? Or just different technology?

[Pity Crit]

Most people don't really have that much lag for VOIP-based communications. If you aren't on modem or satellite, you should be fine. There can still be issues with people speaking over each other, but people seem to eventually develop a sort of rhythm.

I'm surprised that this is an issue. I can see it for having a person teleconference in, since that is inherently kind of clumsy, but not otherwise.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

for sites like roll20.

Which is an incredibly bad/moody place. I tried a tome of horrors there once: "would you like me to play a warlock? I have a team-support build made. What level?" = ignored, blocked, and warned all at once.

If you bring your own friends and ignore the community over there, I suppose it would work out.

[Pity Crit]

Gross. Some pre-existing friends invited me over and I have been surprised by how well things have worked out. This despite roll20 not being very intuitive to use, nor the best-designed product in the world. I consider it more proof of concept.

[fearsomepirate]

Back to the original discussion, I have recently seen sales data from two different stores. Small sample, I know, but it's better than guessing. Store A had Pathfinder about even with all D&D products (including 3rd party publications), and Store B had D&D ahead. I found the results using Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them, so you'll have to trust me.

On Amazon, the top six in books in fantasy games are the three 5e books. Then you've got Zelda, some inappropriately categorized adult game, a Magic book, then two more D&D modules, some Minecraft thing, and then finally, at #13, the Pathfinder core rule book.

I think what it comes down to is that Dungeons & Dragons is like Star Trek. If the 2017 series is passably good, its ratings will annihilate any pretenders to the throne. No other sci-fi show, no matter how good, is Star Trek. The crown belongs to it, and it merely needs to be reasonably good to retrieve it from the depths into which it was cast by Enterprise.

Since the general consensus is that 5e is reasonably good (better than that, really), that really settles it. No matter how good Paizo is---and they've done a great job---Pathfinder will never be D&D. Golarion will never be Faerun, and the Darklands will never be the Underdark. Wizards is competently managing its brand now, and that's really all they need to do.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

...  ... you've no idea how happy I am, that Kirk got irradiated, this go round.


 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Wizards is competently managing its brand now, and that's really all they need to do.

Evidence? I could site closing 339 as a harsh counterexample.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Back to the original discussion, I have recently seen sales data from two different stores. Small sample, I know, but it's better than guessing. Store A had Pathfinder about even with all D&D products (including 3rd party publications), and Store B had D&D ahead. I found the results using Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them, so you'll have to trust me.

On Amazon, the top six in books in fantasy games are the three 5e books. Then you've got Zelda, some inappropriately categorized adult game, a Magic book, then two more D&D modules, some Minecraft thing, and then finally, at #13, the Pathfinder core rule book.

I think what it comes down to is that Dungeons & Dragons is like Star Trek. If the 2017 series is passably good, its ratings will annihilate any pretenders to the throne. No other sci-fi show, no matter how good, is Star Trek. The crown belongs to it, and it merely needs to be reasonably good to retrieve it from the depths into which it was cast by Enterprise.

Since the general consensus is that 5e is reasonably good (better than that, really), that really settles it. No matter how good Paizo is---and they've done a great job---Pathfinder will never be D&D. Golarion will never be Faerun, and the Darklands will never be the Underdark. Wizards is competently managing its brand now, and that's really all they need to do.

But isnt the PF Core Rulebook like a 6 year old book now? I think it is a little unfair to compare  how well two products are selling when one is a 6 year old product and the other is a little over a year old.

[Libertad]

But isnt the PF Core Rulebook like a 6 year old book now? I think it is a little unfair to compare  how well two products are selling when one is a 6 year old product and the other is a little over a year old.

Also, 3rd Edition came out in an era when the Nintendo 64 was still making games (albeit in its last days), so the system as a whole is a lot older than people give it credit for.

Since the general consensus is that 5e is reasonably good (better than that, really), that really settles it. No matter how good Paizo is---and they've done a great job---Pathfinder will never be D&D. Golarion will never be Faerun, and the Darklands will never be the Underdark. Wizards is competently managing its brand now, and that's really all they need to do

As for 5th products, I see a lot of people complain that the releases are way too slow, even though it debuted since late 2014 and there's quite a bit already.  However, the only setting sourcebook we have is for one region of the Forgotten Realms (Sword Coast) and the majority of supplements are adventures, which as a whole tend to not be played multiple times by the same group.  Compare this to the first year of 3rd Edition, where we had a whole Forgotten Realms setting guide, a Book of Vile Darkness, several class splatbooks, as well as adventures.  So there's feelings that the array available for 5th is more limited.

Personally speaking I think that the production rate for Wizards is fine as is; heavens knows if I was a regular player I'd be happy to get enough time to read the books I got fully instead of feeling inundated with release after release of full-priced hardcovers.

I do think that Wizards still acts like Luddites at times when it comes to digital products.  Why they haven't released the 5E corebooks as legal PDFs when they've done so for previous editions is beyond me.

[fearsomepirate]

Back to the original discussion, I have recently seen sales data from two different stores. Small sample, I know, but it's better than guessing. Store A had Pathfinder about even with all D&D products (including 3rd party publications), and Store B had D&D ahead. I found the results using Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them, so you'll have to trust me.

On Amazon, the top six in books in fantasy games are the three 5e books. Then you've got Zelda, some inappropriately categorized adult game, a Magic book, then two more D&D modules, some Minecraft thing, and then finally, at #13, the Pathfinder core rule book.

I think what it comes down to is that Dungeons & Dragons is like Star Trek. If the 2017 series is passably good, its ratings will annihilate any pretenders to the throne. No other sci-fi show, no matter how good, is Star Trek. The crown belongs to it, and it merely needs to be reasonably good to retrieve it from the depths into which it was cast by Enterprise.

Since the general consensus is that 5e is reasonably good (better than that, really), that really settles it. No matter how good Paizo is---and they've done a great job---Pathfinder will never be D&D. Golarion will never be Faerun, and the Darklands will never be the Underdark. Wizards is competently managing its brand now, and that's really all they need to do.

But isnt the PF Core Rulebook like a 6 year old book now? I think it is a little unfair to compare  how well two products are selling when one is a 6 year old product and the other is a little over a year old.

The 5e PHB launched at #1 in all books.  PF Core Rulebook's highest ranking ever was #606. To put it in perspective, Princes of the Apocalypse's highest rank was 150. Also, the PF Core Rulebook is the top-selling PF book on Amazon. Yes, you can come up with reasons for how PF could be more popular than 5e, but what we are lacking is evidence. Every piece of numerical data I can find has D&D 5e outranking PF. If PF truly is more popular, there's got to be some data out there somewhere that says so.

As for 5th products, I see a lot of people complain that the releases are way too slow, even though it debuted since late 2014 and there's quite a bit already.  However, the only setting sourcebook we have is for one region of the Forgotten Realms (Sword Coast) and the majority of supplements are adventures, which as a whole tend to not be played multiple times by the same group. 

People love to complain. The Internet was invented for three reasons: porn, stealing software, and complaining. The fact is that TSR bankrupted themselves by flooding the market with splats, 3rd edition suffered a similar end, and 4e eventually alienated even its fans with shameless cash-grab books full of garbage. But going with quality over quantity seems to be working for them. Even with the current pace, they're releasing adventures faster than the vast majority of players can digest them. They're getting good reviews and appear to be selling well.

I do think that Wizards still acts like Luddites at times when it comes to digital products.  Why they haven't released the 5E corebooks as legal PDFs when they've done so for previous editions is beyond me.

Agree 100%.

[Nifft]

I do think that Wizards still acts like Luddites at times when it comes to digital products.  Why they haven't released the 5E corebooks as legal PDFs when they've done so for previous editions is beyond me.

The pirates would need roughly six hours less work per book if WotC did that!

Also, it wouldn't feel like D&D if someone didn't cut a finger while looking for a table in a book.

[Nanshork]

I do think that Wizards still acts like Luddites at times when it comes to digital products.  Why they haven't released the 5E corebooks as legal PDFs when they've done so for previous editions is beyond me.

The pirates would need roughly six hours less work per book if WotC did that!

Also, it wouldn't feel like D&D if someone didn't cut a finger while looking for a table in a book.

At least there's an SRD now?

[Maelphaxerazz]

I am not certain if 3.5 and Pathfinder are still more popular than 5e, since I have not seen any stats for 2016. To be honest, they probably probably are not: from what I've seen (anecdotes, but who cares), 5e has caught on. However, there are still a significant number of people who prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder over 5e, and I do not think that it is because they're unwilling to change. "Resistant to change" has always been a slur from those who like newer things at those who like older things, and it is hardly ever true. After all, people who play RPGs also do other things that are much more different than switching from one RPG to another. If they stick to one tabletop RPG, they always have reasons for doing so.

For me, 5e is okay and I can get behind some of the ideas in it. However, I prefer 3.5's skill system, feats and magic, and I've never been fond of advantage/disadvantage as a mechanic, or of 5e's proficiency system. Furthermore it would take years for 5e to have the breadth of content that 3.5 players enjoy, and I don't think WotC even wants to do that.

On top of that, any new game has to compete not only with the printed version of an older game, but also with all the mods people made to it. Too much has been made of the so-called Oberoni Fallacy; I think "it can be houseruled" is a valid answer because people do houserule, and some things are easier to change than others. Edition wars are pointless because there is no way to compare two games until you sit at one another's table and see how they play the game, not just compare books. This does not only cover houserules, either: the handbooks on this board, Giant in the Playground, and the late WotC boards all affect how D&D is played, as people can obtain "system mastery" quickly and without cost.

In the digital era, it is hard to track what is most popular. Book sales can no longer be used to track a game's spread, because Pathfinder is almost entirely given away for free with its SRD. 3.5 gets similar treatment with D&Dtools, 4e has its character builder, and for any game (D&D or otherwise) the number of pirates exceeds the number of book buyers. A way to stat games is to track which are played online using the virtual tabletops and hope it is a representative sample. Apart from that, I don't know. But I do know that each edition has its own fans and, instead of reuniting the fanbase, 5e has created just another branch.

There's stolid and austere OSR, with its limited rules and distinct playstyle. There's the constantly-morphing chimera of AD&D, with its disunited mechanics and decades-long hodgepodge experimentation. There's the gargantuan 3.PF, with relentless growth built around a single core mechanic. There's firm and dependable 4e, with its separation between fluff and mechanics and its single pattern. And now there's 5e, with some of the limits of OSR with some of the style of 3.PF, forging its own path for those that want an easy-to learn fantasy game with heroic scope. The winner is the player, the loser is anybody who hopes to make money off this industry where the niches are too small and every purchase is an act of charity.

[zugschef]

5E isn't even a complete game and Mearls just said that they've started thinking about what to include in a mechanical expansion. After the PHB has been out for almost a year, they are thinking about the first crunchy splatbook. This is a dead game.

The only reason to play 5E are new players who have bought the books, but otherwise veterans have no reason whatsoever to switch to a in all phases of the game inferior product.

Pathfinder is still the biggest player in the industry and that won't change in the near future, and it certainly won't ever be challanged by 5E which was stillborn.

[Necrosnoop110]

I realize this proves nothing conclusively but I found these numbers:

Pathfinder Home Page http://paizo.com/pathfinder
Total Visits (in Millions)
10/2015 - 1.55 M
11/2015 - 1.60 M
12/2015 - 1.80 M
01/2016 - 2.45 M
02/2016 - 2.80 M
03/2016 - 3.25 M
Source: https://www.similarweb.com/website/paizo.com/pathfinder

D&D 5e Home Page http://dnd.wizards.com/
Total Visits (in Millions)
10/2015 - 1.25 M
11/2015 - 1.10 M
12/2015 - 1.10 M
01/2016 - 1.65 M
02/2016 - 1.35 M
03/2016 - 1.40 M
Source: https://www.similarweb.com/website/dnd.wizards.com

Pathfinder SRD http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
Total Visits (in Millions)
10/2015 - 2.15 M
11/2015 - 2.10 M
12/2015 - 2.30 M
01/2016 - 3.20 M
02/2016 - 3.30 M
03/2016 - 3.70 M
Source: https://www.similarweb.com/website/d20pfsrd.com

D&D 3.5 SRD http://www.d20srd.org/
Total Visits (in Millions)
10/2015 - .74 M
11/2015 - .78 M
12/2015 - .89 M
01/2016 - 1.20 M
02/2016 - 1.20 M
03/2016 - 1.30 M
Source: https://www.similarweb.com/website/d20srd.org

D&D 5 Basic Rules
<Unknown>

D&D 5 SRD
<Unknown>

[Maelphaxerazz]

Thank you, Necro, for the research. Looks like Pathfinder is still king after all.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Nec'snoop ... Niice.

The 5e SRD hasn't been out for long, so not surprising there isn't traffic data (yet).

5e Basic has been available from the start.
Q:  Would your "similarweb" source possibly have that as a data point?
idk if the front page for it, or the pdf itself, or the html, qualify as 1 combined thing.

Presumably that's a comparatively smaller number ...

[TenaciousJ]

Thank you, Necro, for the research. Looks like Pathfinder is still king after all.

I could easily make the claim that the Pathfinder sites only have such large numbers because the game information is free.

User base and growth numbers would be great to see to really decide which game is doing better.  Anecdotally, I see DMs making more of a difference in which game is played than players.  Plenty of players in my area just want a tabletop game to play and will adjust to what the DM wants to run.

[brujon]

The data does suggest a steady increase for both PF and 5E, but PF has been gaining traction much faster than 5E is, going by the user accesses alone.

A more conclusive data-point would be impossible without direct access to data from both companies, or a comprehensive research on local game shops to see which is the most played/sold game.

[RedWarlock]

It's also difficult to judge because user-access for PF could be repeated viewing, or rules-lookups, or even character-generating browsings.

I know when we're in the middle of the PF game I play in on alternating fridays, I probably generate about 100-300 hits myself alone, looking up spells, considering alternate retraining builds and backup character ideas, and browsing both d20pfsrd and Paizo's forums for ideas.