What's more impressive to me is how high up AD&D is. (NOte though, there's free-form and there's freeform; so yeah, freeform is a clear 'winner' as it were.)

In reply to willvr (msg # 11):

Unless you add up all the D&D editions plus the Pathfinder 'variant.'

Eh. I could maybe see adding 3.5 and PF together; but the others are all clearly different games. Though even then it's enough.

There is also plain old free form to add in as well.

I guess the list needs tidying up, but it isn't really a priority.

Gosh. D&D 3.5 has 3x the games that 4.0 does. Who'da thunk?
(I for one dislike 4th Ed with a passion, but that's only one guy's opinion)

In reply to jase (msg # 9):

Thanks a Lot jase! That was exactly what I was looking for.
Though a poll might be interesting as well.

In reply to jase (msg # 9):

Is this pulled from active games, or does it include inactive and deleted games?

In reply to Merevel (msg # 10):

RPoL uses "Free-form", but some people have opted to use "Freeform" (and yes, also "Free form").  GMs can enter anything in, so there's nothing stopping them from typing something that's not on the official list, though it's not recommended because if a user searches for "free-form" they won't find games with the "freeform" or "free form" system.


The list was compiled from all running games, which is active and inactive.

Ah semantics, ok.

Form free
Formfree
Form-free

Let me plant these ideas in someone's head :)

---

Now what do these stats serve?
I mean besides water-cooler talk?

:)

Well, if you know enough game systems, you know what games are likely to be advertised?

It's interesting to know how many others on the site are into the same systems you are - gives an idea of the size of pool you're trying to recruit from, etc.

If it's easy to extract these figures, I'd be interested to see similar charts showing the stats for General/Mature/Adult, and for the various game categories, Fantasy, Historical, etc.

I don't suppose they'll change often, but it would be interesting to see such charts with perhaps an annual update, just to see how game popularities change over time and what's currently hot and not. :)

Well, the numbers don't really tell you anything about how many others are playing the same systems, only how many active and inactive games there are for each system.

For example, you might see that FATE is moderately popular, and figure that you have a good chance of picking up players for a new game.  But those 63 FATE games might be run and played by the same ten people.

And while they really like FATE, none of them have time to join another game right now.

Similarly, those 143 D&D 4e games might all be on the brink of falling over, since none of them have any players because everybody migrated to D&D Next.

Disclaimer: examples given purely for illustrative purposes, and may not reflect actual data.
This message was last edited by the user at 08:07, Sat 31 May 2014.

True, but it gives a marginally better idea of what's what than no info at all.

And water-cooler talk is interesting on its own merits, anyhow. :)

Obviously if the data gathering is a PITA it might not be worthwhile, but Jase seemed to pull up the info easily enough, so an occasional state-of-the-nation might be doable.

A better idea of what other people are playing is not necessarily a useful thing.

I can actually see this sort of list having a negative impact on game longevity.

Potential GM says to himself, "I want to run a game - Pathfinder is really popular, so I'll do that, then I'll have tons of players.  Just need to torrent the rules... "  Then, three weeks later, with a Pathfinder game filled with excited players, "I really hate this system, wish I hadn't downloaded all those stupid pdfs.  Think I'll run an Exalted game instead.  Just need to torrent the rules.  Then create myself a new account so nobody knows it's me... "

IMO, if you're going to run a game, it should be because you really want to run that system, not because a list tells you that there are a lot of other games using it.

Edit: Not saying that everybody would run their games based on system popularity rather than personal preference, but there are an awful lot of people who seem to do exactly that.
This message was last edited by the user at 09:32, Sat 31 May 2014.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 25):

I suspect those people will flit off to another game as soon as the first flush of excitement is done no matter the system or their motivation, as so many seem to do now.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 25):

my original motivation to ask for this piece of information was to know more about what future games to expect (based on past data), like "will it be worth waiting for a game of XXX or should I just join a game of YYY as a compromise and to now wait any more."

In reply to jimlafleur (msg # 27):

Join both? Or is your game schedule that packed? I would love to see a game in the Secret of Mana universe, but, the only one I have seen is invitation only. Do I hold out? No, I ponder a good rule system and think of how I would run a game on day in the world.

In reply to Merevel (msg # 28):

one could, of course. but running one game on my own and playing in another makes me now wanna have two more. less is more, imho.

Nice info. I think this would be a cool stat to see, although I like big data style stats. Maybe a percentage of games with post in PW in the last 2 weeks would show demand for players. Because as a dnd 4e player I rarely see post in PW for a top 5 system, after removing the unnamed system. And yet anytime I post there I have seen a lot of RTJ results.

Charts... like http://beta.rpol.net/charts.php?  While the stats are accurate, it is on the beta site so be warned!

Very pretty!

In reply to jase (msg # 31):

Question related to the pie chart at the bottom.  What is the difference between Homebrew and Home-Brewed for categorization?

Just the spelling.  Different people spell it different ways, and the system doesn't know that they're the same thing.  Otherwise they'd probably be combined.

We should have known that. There is no secret ingredient.