just a tempest in a teacup.
Topless Robot asks WOTC 20 questions. Read the interview here.
What stood out to me? This Q&A:
Q Gamers can be opinionated, and each edition seems to create another segmentation in the community; what were some of the approaches your design team took to make this an edition that could appeal to multiple "fractures" in the D&Dcommunity?
A "The biggest insight we had from the playtest was that those fractures largely arise out of online communities. The greater body of D&D fans wanted very similar things, like fast-moving, intuitive rules, an emphasis on roleplaying and storytelling, and flexible character creation. The playtest was a huge bonus in that regard, because otherwise we might have been caught up in thinking we had a splintered fan base."
In my reading, there IS NO SPLINTERED FAN BASE.
Our border skirmishes notwithstanding.
Compared with 2008 there wa sno edition war IMHO. I thinik that was mostly due to 2 factors.
1. 5E was better recieved.
2. The 3.x faction has already left and they either like 5E or are apathetic towards it. They have Pathfinder so are not as upset as in 2008.
If that were the case, there would have been a fractured or split fan base, clustered in groups of single-product purchasers.
If we take the answer at face value (and I do) those groups don't - and didn't ever - exist on an appreciable scale.
Zard, I think you missed the point...
WotC is saying that when they opened up the playtest and started asking for feedback from whoever wanted to shape the future of D&D, there weren't any factions, just a singular clear majority (to quote "greater body") that wanted similar things.
Meaning that WotC learned that the online appearance of their being factions is just an illusion (of sorts) as it only exists in the online sub-set of the gamer community.
Zardnaar wrote:
Hopefully this is the laurel wreath on the grave of the Big Model, the 3 Fold Model, and whatever else it calls itself. And of its associated so-called "play styles"
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Most D&D players I know genuinely don't care about edition, they just want to get a game together. And almost none of them frequent RPG message boards.
I agree that the edition war is largely an internet phenomenon.
While different people will naturally have different preferences about which editions they like and which ones they dislike, most of the people that I've met in real life aren't going to approach people they don't know and start ranting about how what they like sucks and is destroying the hobby. Just as it is with Youtube comments, it's simply a matter of people emboldened to treat other people horribly because of anonymity and a consequence-free environment.
In those instances where there has been edition warring in real life, I believe it also relates back to the internet as those people are simply taking the horrible nature that they've cultivated for themselves online and inflicting it on society in person, the same way that child who is allowed to be verbally abusive to its family will try to treat other people that way.
Mistwell wrote:
What stood out to me? This Q&A:
Q I know that this is unlikely, but are there any plans to relaunch the old Dungeon and Dragon Magazines in print format?
A We have many ideas on what we can do with them, but nothing to talk about yet
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I think Paizo's sales numbers would beg to differ with the idea that a splintered fan base was *only* an internet community phenomenon. That sounds like good old fashioned spin doctoring from the company that took it in the privates.
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
I think it might important to remind everyone that people buying Pathfinder doesn't necessitate not buying 4e, 5e, or any other game on the market.
People that bought Pathfinder instead of 4e because of preference did not sign away their ability to buy D&D later if they wanted to.
And I mean, come on, think of all the gamer shelves you've seen - either in person or as photos on the internet - you ever seen a collection of books that is exclusively a single game and version? I sure haven't. I've got something like a dozen different games on my shelf right now, and I actually sell off the ones I'm done playing (and don't indulge in the collecting for the sake of collecting like I know many other gamers do)
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
So because people own different RPGs, there was no splintered fan base with 4E D&D? Where is Ashton Kutcher - am I being punked?
MechaPilot wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Online communities allow for the sharing of ideas and thoughts more than any other type of gathering in the history of makind. OF COURSE most of the fracturing will be in online communities -- they're the only ones big enough to support such a thing.
But this seems like a bit of obvious realization mixed in with some spin doctoring. Obviously your biggest fractures will be among your biggest gathering of fans, as small tables generally don't play together if there are those huge splits. By the same token, when I log into Neverwinter I can see edition warring anytime -any- edition is mentioned in general chat, and by people who don't seemingly frequent these boards. So I'm not buying that it's just a thing among those who gather on message boards. It's simultaneously bigger than it looks...and smaller.
But really, when your consideration questions are things akin to: "What is more important to you, a +2 to attack rolls for cover or HAVING FUN WITH PEOPLE WHEN YOU PLAY!", the answer is preordained.
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Of course +2 to attack, too easy.
Ansbach wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
What stood out to me? This Q&A:
Q I know that this is unlikely, but are there any plans to relaunch the old Dungeon and Dragon Magazines in print format?
A We have many ideas on what we can do with them, but nothing to talk about yet
Azzy1974 wrote:
In other news, the vast majority of gamers are not trying to disect WotC's claims about what the vast majority of gamers think. Again, it's only on the forums.
Another factor to consider is that we are (mostly) much more polite in person. Typing opinions at others via the internet often gets much more ugly and rude than face to face conversations. No matter how heated the debate.
Various political, religious, and discriminatory things you read online are a perfect, if extreme, example. 99% of that stuff is stuff you would never hear in person, lol. Sitting in front of a keyboard and screen, with no chance of getting punched, gives anyone massive cajones.
mellored wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
seti wrote:
Yeah, the only arguements my group has is over what to do, lol. Never about which edition is 'better'.
On a different note, I don't see 4e as really that much more 'tactical' than 5e. You can play 5e with a grid and minis. There still are conditions. There is still forced movement. True, there's no 'Marking'. (easily houseruled in) If you want it that way.
I certainly agree that the "edition wars" were likely a minority. The vast majority of players just want to play.
Well, like players of any game or sport, the majority are casual. But even of the minority of dedicated fans I feel are comfortable with a range of games. This is really highlighted by how many side games see attention: there is no one true way.
But even among the minority of a minority that are edition warriors, this transition seems to have been calmer. Most of the hate from 3e fans seems aimed at WotC, as they still feel slighted by 4e. Most people I've talked to who fall in the "3e edition warrior" camp haven't looked much as 5e. And the 4e edition warriors just seem to be going through the motions, picking the same battles they've been arguing for half a decade.
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
mellored wrote:
These message boards were insane when 4E came out. I initially did not like 4E at all, but gave it a chance and ended up having a lot of fun with it. Now with 5th edition here, I look back at each edition and what I see is a plethora of gaming tools and information to pick and choose from. I think its great that the game has evolved so much and that it is still alive and well, far beyond the Gygaxian era now.
The_Jester wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
For fun I tired to remove/correct most of the spin:
Q: Gamers can be opinionated, and each edition seems to create another segmentation in the community; what were some of the approaches your design team took to make this an edition that could appeal to multiple "fractures" in the D&D community?
A: "The biggest insight we had from the playtest was that those fractures largely arose out of online communities, but then as you know spread through the roleplaying community at large and resulted in us losing over half of our customers to Paizo and other companies. The greater body of remaining D&D fans who participated in our 5E playtest wanted very similar things, like fast-moving, intuitive rules, an emphasis on roleplaying and storytelling, and flexible character creation - basically the things 4E was criticized for not having. The playtest was a huge bonus in that regard, because otherwise we might have been caught up in thinking we still had a splintered fan base within our playtest group. We quickly realized that our playtest group only contained the remaining players who were interested in 5E and wanted it to succeed."
Or, WotC staff has been and continues to exist in an overwhelming cloud of confirmation bias.
thecasualoblivion wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
I think that there was very strong feelings on 4e and 3.75 aka Pathfinder and the group that stayed with 3.5. I have been in groups that we played both. More Pathfinder recently. I will say that Pathfinder is a better more balanced version of 3.5. Martial classes have better damage out put and feats to include critical feats that can apply conditions than 3.5. Pathfinder did have years of 3 and 3.5 to build on and tweak. 4e was one of the more balanced games out with classes having powers and resource management. The problem we had with 4th was the math was just off.
it was not hard to miss with your dailies and not have them be reliable. You also could go through your encounter powers very quickly leaving you with at wills. Essentials helped this some. I think the monster AC as well as hit points were to high and combats dragged on and on. If you did not have all you roles covered this could cause issues also. Both pathfinder and 4e had elements we liked and were different enough we ejoyed both. I think our group was somewhat unique in that we played both. I think there were other groups that did this also. But there were groups of people played one or the other. You could call that an edition war I guess. War might be a slightly strong term though. I think you had those that had strong to extreme views for 4e and then those for pathfinder. I think there may have been a larger group of players with more moderate view that may even enjoyed both.
Dave2 wrote:
The fact there was over 2 years of "open" playtest (first one was May 2012, just as the last 4E book was released) meant that people who didn't like 5E/Next have generally vented/ranted months or years ago and moved on in a way that didn't happen for 4E, 3.5 or 3E where people generally only decided they hated it after they had already bought it.
They're probably still playing the edition they like with their friends. Possibly Pathfinder, Dungeon world or a retroclone.
The really vocal and bitter ones are those who don't have that choice with available gaming groups.
The_Jester wrote:
oh yes let;s have aflamewar about weather or not there was an edition war...
just what we need...
and i thought this game attracted smart people...
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I do think that 5e is different enough game that you can enjoy 5e along with Pathfinder and 4e. I plan on keeping all the 4e and Pathfinder books even though we have moved to 5e.
Dave2 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
bawylie wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
@chakravant
I intended to be provocative and to affirmatively state my own position (and I cited the interview portion that supports my assertion). I didn't intend to silence any opposing viewpoints. And I sincerely apologize if you felt I was preemptively quashing you - not anywhere close to what I wanted to do.
@all, Even if I promote a certain POV, it is not my goal to shut you up. Especially if you disagree with me. A conversation wherein we're of perfect accord is hardly a conversation at all. Please know I understand and welcome any other points of view, even if I ultimately disagree with them.
Chakravant wrote:
Thank you for the link, I'm hunting it down now.
The reason I feel like my time was wasted is because both the game I see D&D as and the D&D I want to play (two different things) are impossible in 5E, by design. I never wanted a game that catered to me. I wanted a game that, with enough modules and ideally no houseruling, could in some way, shape, or form eventually be what I want to play. All I wanted was a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel that wasn't a freight train. To put it another way, I didn't want a product that reflected my feedback. I just wanted a product that didn't patently reject and at times outright mock my feedback.
As it stands, after the DMG is released and feedback on it is gathered, I have no business on the 5E forums and will leave. WotC has slammed the door on me and has made it absolutely clear it wants nothing to do with me or my playstyle. I feel like I'm not leaving D&D so much as D&D is leaving me (and spitting on me while doing so).
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Saying that the D&D community hasn't splintered is ridiculous. The OP posted that WotC has made the claim that 5E was the D&D everybody wants, but this is the same WotC that for years said all was well with 4E until all of a sudden it wasn't. Their word on the matter is worth almost nothing.
thecasualoblivion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion - splintered along what lines? Product? Playstyle?
Whrn you say "splintered fan base" are you sure you mean th same as they?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
@The_Jester
I have to confess that I didn't expect all of the at-launch modules to be in the DMG. Given that the free pdf is likely how many will judge 5e, I fully expected a slow-healing module to be present there to make the product better appeal to fans of previous editions (if you recall my discussions with Emerikol before he left, you may recall that I suggested that the slow healing module in the pdf would broaden the appeal to previous edition fans).
I do agree with you that a number of people may have their expectations set too high for the modules, but I don't blame that entirely on them: WotC really was billing modules as the solution to different playstyles and preferences during the playtest.
Also, thanks for the link to the product whose name I couldn't remember. I can't say that I'll buy the pdf just to get a look at what they said the tactical combat module would look like in the article that I can't even find to say how long ago it was mentioned (because who knows if they still plan for it to resemble that at this stage). I'll probably save the $10 and set it aside for whatever book the tactical module is eventually released in.
I don't have an issue with things being better tested, but some communication that they haven't forgotten about it would be nice. As I said, I can't even find the article to figure out how long ago the last time we heard anything about the tactical combat module was last mentioned.
With regard to mass combat, I don't use it often either. Sometimes I have a campaign that involves military campaigns, but most of the time when I run games where PCs are involved in wars they are more like special forces soldiers on secret missions than they are standing in regimented battle-lines. With regard to the mass combat rules being free, we'll have to wait and see on that one. It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up in whatever book the tactical combat module ends up in.
Chakravant wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I thik the OP was wrong, Pathfinder making 11.2 million dollars in 2012 and probably more in 2014 is proof of that.
I am satisfied 5E has had a decent launch though and has avoided the poo storm that greeted 4E. Its not perfect but it is kind of fun.
Zardnaar wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
As to the "splinter group" vs "edition wars" argument. The posts that are making this distinction are also making the argument that a "splinter group" is a group that only plays one edition; then, using sales data to equate those edition to splinter groups. This couldn't be further from the truth; the sales data in no way indicates that it is from individual splinter groups, that only play that edition.
Just because Pathfinder made more sales than 4th Edition, doesn't mean that the people who bought Pathfiinder didn't buy (or never play) 4th Edition; or that those who bought 4th Edition didn't buy (or never play ) Pathfinder. It also doesn't mean that no one from either of those groups didn't buy (or ever quit playing) earlier editions.
When they said that think there is no splintered fan base; they are refering to splinter groups as the groups that only play one edition, and that any such splinter groups do not make up enough of the fan base to call the fan base splintered.
Gnarl wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
How is it that other groups got full surveys about the playtest...without being online to get the playtest? Or does showing up at a convention as an online playtester allow you double representation? What were the questions like? It would seem difficult for convention-goers who weren't online playtesters to speak intelligently about minute revisions between alternate playtest releases, wouldn't it? How would they have that info? What am I missing here? If people weren't playtesters and only got a chance to make a few comments after a convention game, wouldn't that necessarily skew the data in the direction of approval for most people, given face to face pressure and (likely) how well the game went? As in, if the game was fun and seemed quick, wouldn't 'good enough' qualify as 'approval' of the game in general, even though the person only played a single character/class?
I don't know, seems I'm missing something somewhere. Also...if online people were/are considered a 'tempest in a teacup' and not representative of D&D players as a whole...why would the surveys even matter then? The only surveys coming back online would be those that were taken by playtesters online, right? How can those people be simultaneously indicative of approval of the game, and irrelevant in the terms of what the 'general community' wanted?
My head hurts. I think I'm overthinking this.
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
quote="Mistwell"]
Zardnaar wrote:
The 5e PHB is on, I beleive, it's 4th printing right now (though it might be 5th). For what that is worth.
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
A lot of you guys would probably be interested in and benefit from watching this presentation:
What is Happening to Tabletop RPGs?
2014 PAX East panel with Ryan Dancey, Luke Peterschmidt, Shane Defreest, Derek Lloyd, Luke Crane, Matt McElroy, and Mike Mearls
Ansbach wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Sales of product aren't in pace with the growth of the market base. So they can be both "like gangbusters" and below expectation at the same time.
As always, it's appropriate to look at the business model AND the product together. 2nd edition seemed to treat the game like a console and provided varied settings to play in. 3rd & 4th seemed to treat the game as the forefront product (and even tried to garner subscriptions), but by and large weren't all that successful in putting out things to play with the product.
Paizo achieved substantial success on their APs - whatever you think of PF (I dislike it), paizo's APs are quite good, even the clunkier ones.
5th makes its return to the model of console: games. Products will be settings and story lines. As well as ties to peripheral products like books, games, etc. Not a bad business plan. Depends on the entertainment value of the products.
But that's all kind of irrelevant to the main point. With some few exceptions, we're more or less United in what we want out of D&D. In broad terms. In case to case, I think we're ALL doing some hacking - and I believe this is expected and intended.
What we didn't find is a 3 fold division of the customer base along the lines described in some pseudo-theory of game agenda. Nor did we find a customer base of tribes or nations, each flying an edition flag. Playstyle and Agenda and Edition Warriors proved out as Scarecrows - and that's all.
That doesn't mean your opinions, preferences, likes, & dislikes aren't relevent. It means that yours don't dovetail with massive groups of others. It means making a game that supports rulings over rules creates a situation wherein you and I can both be supported when we tailor our games to suit our desires. Ignoring the "distractions" allowed for the game design to focus on the areas we broadly preferred.
5E still isn't my favorite game. It's probably my 2nd or more likely 3rd. But it's also everyone else's 2nd or 3rd (at least). So it's pretty good all around.
FYI - in the video I linked above, Dancey said 3rd Edition did "really well".
Other notable comments from the video:
2008 was the birth of the "big split" between 4E and Pathfinder, and the fact that Pathfinder has outsold D&D since 2010 is "epic".
"4E was huge when it first came out, then rapidly - we all know - it failed."
Regarding sales data, "it's impossible to know in our market" and "We don't have quantitative data, but we have qualitative data".
Ansbach wrote:
I hate to derail a thread (ok, you caught me: that's a lie) but this discussion calls to mind the book "Culture War?". In it is extensive data showing that there is no Red State / Blue State divide in America, that most Americans pretty much agree on every issue, and the point of agreement lies somewhere between the official positions of the two parties. It's only the rules of elections (and the way pollsters phrase questions) that make it look like there's a gulf. Really good book; very thoroughly researched.
But try to convince a party zealot...of either side...of this and they'll respond with the same arguments I see in this thread. Tiny minorities with outsized voices like to believe they are speaking for more people than they are.
Oh, I just have to update my post. Bawlyie wrote:
5E still isn't my favorite game. It's probably my 2nd or more likely 3rd. But it's also everyone else's 2nd or 3rd (at least). So it's pretty good all around.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Why would there have been? The vast majority of people have better things to do than ranting about an edition of a game on an internet forum. They see an edition they don't like, then they simply don't buy it and that's it for them. No need at all to tell others about what they are not buying.
So rather than an edition war, for most people it was simply an edition abandonment.
Mirtek wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
I think the license is a winner if the brand is successful. But if it's not a moneymaker, yet still culturally ubiquitous, then "official license" means very little.
Elfcrusher wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
It seems to me the success of pathfnder, representing 3.5, and success of 4e (representing 4e!), demonstrates there was a split of the player base, nicknamed the edition war. The Fantasy RPG monopoly that was DnD became the DnD/Pathfinder Duopoly that remains today. Frankly I would prefer the Duopoly to continue, even though I am not much interested in pathfinder. That kind of competition led to the biggest Dnd playtest ever, resulting in the very excellent 5e game we now enjoy.
What I get from what mearls said is not "No splintering occured at all" and more of "The absolutes of the splintering aren't nearly as black and white as the online community make it seem."
People play pathfinder, people play 4e. But the gaming public at large may not have the "one or the other" mentality that seems prevalent online.
I don't think they skewed there data or ignored it. They may have done several things wrong though.
1. Apparently the playtest was 4E heavy in respondents. No surprise as that was the current ediiton and they advertised it on DDI.
2. A lot of the 3.5 player are now playing Pathfinder, not sure how many of them responded. Their data may not have indicated a split becuase they were missing a good chunk of data.
3. The final 2 packets kind of came out of left field. They were playtesting concepts.
4. They did not ask a lot of hard questions IMHO. There was a lot of fill in areas where they wanted details on small things. For example I do not recall a nice and simnle question on the healing rate for example. You had to pencil it in. Spell casters always had cantrips was another one they never asked did you want them on the spell casters at all IIRC.
So yeah the playtest could have been run better but with 25000 people responding it is a decent sample size (political polls are a lot smaller for a larger % of voters). It may be flawed but I don't really see how they could have made a better one. I think they lead some quetions towards answers they wanted here and there or slightly tweaked or rephased htings here and there.
5E has some flaws of course. Editing could have been better along with organisation. Most D&D versions have something wrong with them requiring errata.
Jenks wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I still love ya Brightmantle.
bawylie wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Its also to early to argue over if 5E has done well. It seems to have had a good launch but so did 4E. If 5E ends up tanking all they have proved is any new edition of D&D well do well at launch. I think it will come down to how many 3/.5/Pathfinder players return and/or new players come into the game.
Talking about a brand is one thing but it takes over a year to make a movie, 2-3 years for a video game so talk of selling the D&D "brand" is just that at this point.
The_Jester wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kram-Odlog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"Brightmantle wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Kram-Odlog wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
How is 5E doing on the onlione game tables? Last I looked Pathfinder outnumbered the others put togather almost. Might give you an idea who is playing the game ass oposed to initial buy in. Basically has there been a drop in Pathfinder and an upsurge in 5E games being played? Or just an upsurge in 5E in general.
Kram-Odlog wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
In the end, it's all just the Adam West Effect.
Psikerlord wrote:
Good point Zardnaar - I just remembered seeing this recently, should have thought of posting it earlier.
Pathfinder still blows away 5E, but not all D&D editions combined. For those of you who think that 5E is taking the RPG world by storm, this report is quite humbling. 5E has already passed 4E, but hasn't even caught 3E/3.5E yet - much less Pathfinder.
Here is Q3 of 2014 for Roll20, based on a sample size of 25,000 games and 15,000 players. You can read about the methodology in the link below, but the short version is Game % is what is actually being played (and is more accurate), Player % is what players listed as they enjoy playing - not what they are currently playing:
A couple of obvious points regarding online play supported by this data:
- 'No splintered fan base' is clearly rubbish.
- Many players enjoy playing more than one edition/system.
- Pathfinder/3.5E is almost twice as popular as 4E with players, and is played 4x as much.
- 5E is starting to make a dent, but is still only played by a very small fraction of players.
- D&D/Pathfinder still dominates the market, but not as much as it used to.
It will be interesting to see how much 5E has gained in the Q4 report.
For those of you who's claims are contradicted by this data and want to try to invalidate it, here is the link to the methodology...
http://blog.roll20.net/post/100246471625/what-is-the-orr-group-industry-report-and-what-does
No one is claiming that this data perfectly represents the entire RPG community, but for a general indication I will trust an independent study of 25,000 games over "you and your friends" any time. 
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
I doubt most D&D players have multiple games going on during the week, and find themselves lucky to be involved in any game at all. This is not like a video game that you can simply switch up the moment you get bored with it. It takes the collective will of all the players in a group to decide to abandon their on-going game and switch to some other edition. They have to want to buy new books and relearn the rules. So for most groups, whatever edition you are currently playing is the edition you most likely will continue to play. A new edition or system has be to a lot better in many significant ways from the perspective of the players in order to get them to switch. Its difficult to keep convincing players to move along to newer and newer editions, unless its something they are prone to do regardless. So, yes, when you look at a cross section of the player base you'll see all editions being played, and you can call that fractured and splintered if you want.
However, that wasn't the kind of splintering mentioned by the WOTC in the Q&A. They were referring to the fan base being splintered (or not) along the lines of what they wanted out of the game (like fast play, etc), not about being splintered along the lines of what edition they were currently playing. So aside from almost everyone here missing the point, what is even more astounding is that not only were the players NOT splintered along what they wanted out of the game, that it was true across all current players of all editions. So what 2E players wanted out of the game did not differ in general to what 4E players wanted out of the game.
Wuzzard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Hello folks,
This thread is not really on topic here, so I'm going to close it. The point of this forum is to discuss the game and it's products, and is not suitable for meta discussions about the community or edition warring or anything of that nature. These discussions tend to only cause misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
Thanks for understanding.
Monica