This blog post (http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/284/google-statistics-dd-vs-pathfinder/)was recommended to me by one of the local gamers and has got some pretty interesting data on Google searches for D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder.
I got an email from Kobold Courier (thanks to drivethru) that reported this and linked to the blog post, as well.
That's very neat! Thanks for the link.
Very cool indeed.
Not sure about the numbers but it does show that that the OGL is working and 4e was and is a failure.
Why am I the only person not using a Magnificent Seven or The Good, Bad, and The Ugly avatar? Is there a female actress in either movie I could use?
Marleycat, just use wonderwoman.
On the Google statistics; Was it 4e that introduced DDI? (I don't follow WotC D&D crap, so I'm not sure). If so, having an in-house character generator, etc. may be a reason for less need to search Google and hence the trends seen.
Quote from: Stainless;555536Marleycat, just use wonderwoman.
On the Google statistics; Was it 4e that introduced DDI? (I don't follow WotC D&D crap, so I'm not sure). If so, having an in-house character generator, etc. may be a reason for less need to search Google and hence the trends seen.
Yes, 4e introduced DDI and I think it's a big factor. Just wait until they stop DDI support for 4e. It won't be pretty.
Wonderwoman would never fit me maybe Selena whatever from the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie would be a good avatar to fit in? Though I love my current black cat avatar.:)
This data proves absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt that 1e was the least popular edition by far, far, far:
(http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dd-edition-wars-monthly-searches-580x319.jpg)
How about that?!? What, crickets?
:p
Could the statistics be equally correlated to bloat? Not knowing anything about D&D editions other than 1e, was 3.5 more bloated than 3? With more product, and/or complex rules, one might expect more Google traffic. i.e., this analysis assumes Google traffic correlates with popularity, but of course it could simply correlate with confusion. After all, that's what Google queries are about; you go there when you have a question, don't know something, don't understand something.
Thus, I conclude that 1e was the most logically coherent and understandable edition. So I'm looking forward to getting the reprints and OSRIC.
I've never played or run DnD 3, or 3.5.
Up until recently I ran Pathfinder regularly for about 2 years.
Sometimes when looking for information, I'd do 3.5 searches as PF and 3.5 are pretty compatible and there's a lot of material in 3.5 that doesn't exist in PF, but is easily usable.
So I wonder if the 3.5 / PF stats are skewed somewhat as some 3.5 searches are really PF searches and possibly the other way as well.
Quote from: danskmacabre;555568I've never played or run DnD 3, or 3.5.
Up until recently I ran Pathfinder regularly for about 2 years.
Sometimes when looking for information, I'd do 3.5 searches as PF and 3.5 are pretty compatible and there's a lot of material in 3.5 that doesn't exist in PF, but is easily usable.
So I wonder if the 3.5 / PF stats are skewed somewhat as some 3.5 searches are really PF searches and possibly the other way as well.
That's my opinion. But then again I'm taking Stainless's tack somewhat. :)
Quote from: Stainless;555564Could the statistics be equally correlated to bloat? Not knowing anything about D&D editions other than 1e, was 3.5 more bloated than 3? With more product, and/or complex rules, one might expect more Google traffic. i.e., this analysis assumes Google traffic correlates with popularity, but of course it could simply correlate with confusion. After all, that's what Google queries are about; you go there when you have a question, don't know something, don't understand something.
Thus, I conclude that 1e was the most logically coherent and understandable edition. So I'm looking forward to getting the reprints and OSRIC.
Not really. WotC were releasing products faster in the 3.0 days, but the average length of them was shorter, so overall, that kinda balances out. I think it's simply that when 3.5 came out, the majority of groups judged it an overall improvement and switched to it.
Data! Yum!
That is an interesting read. That rather flat line for 4e is what I find the most interesting. The google activity seems to chug along and likely at a volume that any smaller RPG publisher would be overjoyed to have. There are so many different ways to unpack that flat line though.
From my own perspective it speaks to me at how 4e's system itself is fine tuned and effective at what it does, but there is something about the overall package that doesn't capture the imagination the way the more open-ended yet muddied 3.5/Pathfinder mishmash of simulation and gamism grabs people's attention.
On the line chart, I'm trying to figure out/remember what was happening mid-2009; both Pathfinder and 3.5 activity seem to simultaneous step up a notch about halfway through the year there (June or July at a guess).
Anybody who likes 1E, and has been playing it for decades, probably found their web resources for 1E content before 2004, and bookmarked them. I currently play 1E, but I don't do web-searches for it. Why would I?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;555603On the line chart, I'm trying to figure out/remember what was happening mid-2009; both Pathfinder and 3.5 activity seem to simultaneous step up a notch about halfway through the year there (June or July at a guess).
4e released Eberron right then, but I can't think of anything particularly 3.5/Pathfinder related in that time. (Obviously whatever caused 3.5 to jump, it didn't have to do with new 3.5 content.)
EDIT: On further review, Duh, not sure how I missed that. August 2009 was the actual release date of Pathfinder.
So that's probably the cause.
It's one year after the release of 4E. It's about when I realized I was going to abandon 4E when the campaign I was running ended. I'd been playing for 9 months, played for another 9. I switched to AD&D instead of going back to 3E, perhaps others were starting to come to the realization that, after playing for a while, it just wasn't performing like they wanted.
Quote from: Teazia;555560This data proves absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt that 1e was the least popular edition by far, far, far:
(http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dd-edition-wars-monthly-searches-580x319.jpg)
How about that?!? What, crickets?
:p
Nah, we're just not scared and uncertain about rules, unlike some fans of 2e, and a shitload of 3e, pathfinder and 4e fans! :D
Their was also a D&D Insider 20% price rise in June 2009. That may have contributed to people switching back.
Regarding the low search volume for 1e & 2e, I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that much of the online enthusiasm for pre-WotC D&D has been absorbed by the OSR and retroclones.
There's that, and people who had been playing AD&D for 20 years either had their online resources bookmarked by 2004, or simply didn't need external sources by that point.
Quote from: Kaldric;555630There's that, and people who had been playing AD&D for 20 years either had their online resources bookmarked by 2004, or simply didn't need external sources by that point.
I know that a significant portion of the gamers I play with don't bother with online materials at all. However, I don't think there are enough of them to nudge the graphs either.
Quote from: Kaelik;5556134e released Eberron right then, but I can't think of anything particularly 3.5/Pathfinder related in that time. (Obviously whatever caused 3.5 to jump, it didn't have to do with new 3.5 content.)
EDIT: On further review, Duh, not sure how I missed that. August 2009 was the actual release date of Pathfinder.
So that's probably the cause.
D'oh, can't believe I missed that either! OK, thanks.
Quote from: Dimitrios;555628Regarding the low search volume for 1e & 2e, I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that much of the online enthusiasm for pre-WotC D&D has been absorbed by the OSR and retroclones.
No Delver is right pre 3x you were expected to houserule alot and the need for unified rules was far less because RPGA just isn't a factor.
Quote from: Silverlion;555744However, I don't think there are enough [1e players] to nudge the graphs either.
Yeah, I think the idea that there are all these 1e groups out there playing away at their original campaigns, oblivious of the intrewebs, like some sort of lost tribes in the deepest Amazon still lving in the Stone Age, is a bit of wishful thinking.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555812Yeah, I think the idea that there are all these 1e groups out there playing away at their original campaigns, oblivious of the intrewebs, like some sort of lost tribes in the deepest Amazon still lving in the Stone Age, is a bit of wishful thinking.
I could go either way on this, I mean those 1e guys are so fucked up and strange, who the fuck knows what they're doing aside from trying to find 8-track player replacement parts and worshiping Satan.
Quote from: Gib;555813I could go either way on this, I mean those 1e guys are so fucked up and strange, who the fuck knows what they're doing aside from trying to find 8-track player replacement parts and worshiping Satan.
I swear by my Dark Lord, you will die by fire.
Quote from: Marleycat;555799No Delver is right pre 3x you were expected to houserule alot and the need for unified rules was far less because RPGA just isn't a factor.
I really didn't realize that the RPGA was that much of a factor, to be honest.
Oh, and I like your cat avatar better MC, but that's probably because it looks like my Bombay kitty.
EDIT: and I'll only change my avatar if the moderation specifically asks; I rather like my "merc with a mouth" (Deadpool).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555817I swear by my Dark Lord, you will die by fire.
People keep saying that to me; it's so weird.
Couldn't a lot of people also be searching for D&D modules to download for free?
Also, are any of these numbers by way of mechanical searches? Meaning, sites that scrape other sites. You see that alot from various "libraries" linking up to files stored on 4shared and the torrent sites.
Quote from: Novastar;555820I really didn't realize that the RPGA was that much of a factor, to be honest.
Oh, and I like your cat avatar better MC, but that's probably because it looks like my Bombay kitty.
EDIT: and I'll only change my avatar if the moderation specifically asks; I rather like my "merc with a mouth" (Deadpool).
The searches on the net are because the rules are very important in 3/4e because a good number of people play RPGA which require uniform and consistent rules unlike 1/2e which is purely homegame driven so the rules can vary hence less need for officially accepted and sanctioned rules so less questions purely rule focused.
I love my black cat avatar it will definitely be back. But I'm in a swashbuckling mood currently.:)
Then buckle them swashes, me matey, and remember: ninja's are most deadly in small numbers... :pundit:
"We 1e players don't use the interwebs...."
Lol
1e players built the interwebs!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555812Yeah, I think the idea that there are all these 1e groups out there playing away at their original campaigns, oblivious of the intrewebs, like some sort of lost tribes in the deepest Amazon still lving in the Stone Age, is a bit of wishful thinking.
I don't think it's all that unusual. I've run into multiple groups who were still running 2E well into the 3.5 era. Not out of any edition warring sentiments, but because they'd been playing 2E since college or high school and had never bothered to upgrade because they didn't want to buy a bunch of new books or learn a new system. These groups played D&D as one of many group hobbies, didn't really spend much time thinking about it outside of play session, and really didn't spend any time pfaffing about on the Internet about it.
I suspect most people play the edition they do because it's what they started with, and for no other reason.
As much as people want to use these (indicative of absolutely nothing) numbers to support their existing biases, I think I could make a pretty good argument that the numbers correlate just as well to number of current players who started playing with that edition (with 3.0 and 3.5 treated as a single edition).
Quote from: daniel_ream;555851I don't think it's all that unusual. I've run into multiple groups who were still running 2E well into the 3.5 era. Not out of any edition warring sentiments, but because they'd been playing 2E since college or high school and had never bothered to upgrade because they didn't want to buy a bunch of new books or learn a new system. These groups played D&D as one of many group hobbies, didn't really spend much time thinking about it outside of play session, and really didn't spend any time pfaffing about on the Internet about it.
I suspect most people play the edition they do because it's what they started with, and for no other reason.
As much as people want to use these (indicative of absolutely nothing) numbers to support their existing biases, I think I could make a pretty good argument that the numbers correlate just as well to number of current players who started playing with that edition (with 3.0 and 3.5 treated as a single edition).
I was more speaking to number of internet searches not what is actually being played. My opinion is that 3x and derivatives are most played followed by 4e but pre 3x probably is nearly as or is played as much as 4e. And that's a lowball estimate especially if you count things like S&W, C&C etc.
WotC is doing their own research. They're re-releasing 1e and 3.5e to see how many they sell. Those numbers are going heavily influence 5e methinks.
Quote from: daniel_ream;555851I don't think it's all that unusual. . . . These groups played D&D as one of many group hobbies, didn't really spend much time thinking about it outside of play session, and really didn't spend any time pfaffing about on the Internet about it.
You could say the same thing about players of any edition.
The idea that one's
D&D edition of choice correlates to level of internet activity is kinda fucking ridiculous.
Quote from: CRKrueger;555854WotC is doing their own research. They're re-releasing 1e and 3.5e to see how many they sell. Those numbers are going heavily influence 5e methinks.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case obviously. Then again they already get those numbers via the playtest feedback and other polls they are doing. I think the reissues main intention is to build goodwill but dollars to doughnuts the secondary purpose is exactly what you say.
Quote from: Teazia;555850"We 1e players don't use the interwebs...."
Lol
1e players built the interwebs!
Say it brother! Long live the days of UUENCODE/DECODE and usernet newsgroups. What is this new fangled WWW?
(Note: I pre-date public access to the Internet. Cut my teeth using ARPANET. And I remember programming usng computer cards! Yikes, I'm old.)
Quote from: CRKrueger;555854WotC is doing their own research. They're re-releasing 1e and 3.5e to see how many they sell. Those numbers are going heavily influence 5e methinks.
I completely agree with you that the re-releasing of 1e and 3.5e is all about market research for 5e. Nothing at all about being generous and noble to the fans or a change of heart in sales strategies. You can have as many surveys as you like, but nothing speaks of true intentions as much as the willingness to stump up money for them. Sales figures are concrete data.
Quote from: Stainless;555865Say it brother! Long live the days of UUENCODE/DECODE and usernet newsgroups. What is this new fangled WWW?
(Note: I pre-date public access to the Internet. Cut my teeth using ARPANET. And I remember programming usng computer cards! Yikes, I'm old.)
Arpanet?!? Hehe, that would mean you either:
1. Now have some level of military security clearance, and got IPO rich in '94-99.
2. Are a bonafide hacker/terrorist, broke as hell using your held together with a large rubber band 12 inch g4 powerbook to get on these here webs. Altivec is SO sweet and STILL so tomorrow!
:p
Australian universities used Arpanet before it finally developed its own AARNet. So from about 84 - 89 I was dicking around on computers connected to Arpanet. I'm afraid to mention it, but I'm one of the community that created the LMAO, LOL, YMMV, etc. We wasted huge amounts of time creating and critiquing these plus trying to draw ASCII art. Oh, and stitch together multi-part porn pictures.
Now I'm an over worked and under recognized academic. To think, I could have got in at the ground level of Google if only I'd had the foresight [palm smacks self]
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555812Yeah, I think the idea that there are all these 1e groups out there playing away at their original campaigns, oblivious of the intrewebs, like some sort of lost tribes in the deepest Amazon still lving in the Stone Age, is a bit of wishful thinking.
There are some out there. I used to meet up with several at the local Gamestore, sadly that shut a few years ago pretty much ending any real contact.
Quote from: Marleycat;555525Not sure about the numbers but it does show that that the OGL is working and 4e was and is a failure.
Why am I the only person not using a Magnificent Seven or The Good, Bad, and The Ugly avatar? Is there a female actress in either movie I could use?
As someone using Franco Nero as Django I object !
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555856You could say the same thing about players of any edition.
The idea that one's D&D edition of choice correlates to level of internet activity is kinda fucking ridiculous.
Maybe, but one thing I've noticed is that with folks who are now in their 50's and 60's is that they either totally went whole hog with technology or they actually need someone to google stuff for them. The latter group seems to live with the steadfast conviction that they will never learn how to use a computer/internet, because they are too old. Never mind that they've had a fucking pc on their desk at work since 1989. They're out there man, I've worked for them, and my wife's mom is one. These are people who can't even use Macs. Hell, I have to help my best friend with everything and he's only 40.
Quote from: Marleycat;555525Why am I the only person not using a Magnificent Seven or The Good, Bad, and The Ugly avatar? Is there a female actress in either movie I could use?
Personally, I dig your current avatar! ;)
However, there was Petra (Rosenda Monteros) from
The Magnificent Seven:
(http://www.moviemarket.com/library/photos/195/195716.jpg)
Also, there was Stevens' Wife (Chelo Alonso) from
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:
(http://www.cultsirens.com/alonso/chelo-alonso07.jpg)
Quote from: Drohem;555940Personally, I dig your current avatar! ;)
However, there was Petra (Rosenda Monteros) from The Magnificent Seven:
(http://www.moviemarket.com/library/photos/195/195716.jpg)
Also, there was Stevens' Wife (Chelo Alonso) from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:
(http://www.cultsirens.com/alonso/chelo-alonso07.jpg)
Chelo is going in my collection, thanks Drohem.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;555941Chelo is going in my collection, thanks Drohem.:)
No no no ... they are all tiny bit parts.
Etta Pace from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?
Ellen from The Quick and the Dead (not an old school classic but I still think its a good western with a cracking cast) ?
Best of all Hannie Caulder - Its the right era 1970 and its Raquel Welch at her Prime and quite a prime that was
Quote from: jibbajibba;555951Raquel Welch at her Prime and quite a prime that was
Yes indeed.
(http://filmlinc.com/page/-/uploads/films/hannie_601.jpg/@mx_600)
Quote from: CRKrueger;555966Yes indeed.
(http://filmlinc.com/page/-/uploads/films/hannie_601.jpg/@mx_600)
Hello.... :)
Well, she did mention the two specific movies. However, Chelo Alonso (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Chelo+Alonso+pictures&qpvt=Chelo+Alonso+pictures&FORM=IGRE) was definitely a 'sex kitten' of the time even though she had a small part in the movie.
She was insanely beautiful, still is in fact.
QuoteWell, she did mention the two specific movies. However, Chelo Alonso was definitely a 'sex kitten' of the time even though she had a small part in the movie.
Correct I was looking for a specific look. And specific movies.
RE: Welch: She's so awesome in the Three Musketeers, not only in the way she looks, but her comedic performance is fucking great.
She was my second movie star crush after Jenny Aguter. Michael York got all the good ones.
How can you miss Claudia Cardinale in Once Upon a Time in the West? Awesome lines, plus JR gives her a great compliment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcp5l08Kyg4
With respect to the great trilogy, this remains my favorite Western (that doesn't have Clint). Henry Fonda as the bad guy!
Cat Ballou?
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/imagesCAKESUJ0.jpg)
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/imagesCAST0CB7.jpg)
(That's Jane Fonda of course).
I think that the information shown so far on this thread really isn't adequate in terms of information gathering to give us any kind of a clear understanding. For that, you'd need to do searches on a variety of words, and try to filter out for contexts. You'd need to search for the various OSR titles, for "AD&D", try to figure out somehow what the majority of searches for "D&D" are about, probably search for at least some of the supplement titles, etc.
And if there was some way, figure out how many in each area are actually of material critical of a given edition.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;556152I think that the information shown so far on this thread really isn't adequate in terms of information gathering to give us any kind of a clear understanding. For that, you'd need to do searches on a variety of words, and try to filter out for contexts. You'd need to search for the various OSR titles, for "AD&D", try to figure out somehow what the majority of searches for "D&D" are about, probably search for at least some of the supplement titles, etc.
And if there was some way, figure out how many in each area are actually of material critical of a given edition.
RPGPundit
Definitely the smart move. Quit trying to inject logic into this!
Another (possibly small) factor in the low numbers for 1&2e on the internet is how TSR handled the advent of the internet, which is to say very badly, with cease and desist letters, etc. Because of this there wasn't as much AD&D content as compared to the explosion of 3e and 4e stuff, at least until the OSR community started to use the OGL as well.
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;556743Another (possibly small) factor in the low numbers for 1&2e on the internet is how TSR handled the advent of the internet, which is to say very badly, with cease and desist letters, etc. Because of this there wasn't as much AD&D content as compared to the explosion of 3e and 4e stuff, at least until the OSR community started to use the OGL as well.
Another is the fact that large swaths of the TSR era Internet doesn't really exist anymore (or is at least problematic to access). Aol websites, usenet, geocities, etc...
Tons of TSR-era material just isn't around anymore (sadly).