Roll20's Latest Report Shows Growth Everywhere!

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

, 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]

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]

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]

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]

....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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Hurin70]

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.