Why does 4e have so few players compared to 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e?

Probably because 4e was shit. The real question is what is up with the disparity between games and player numbers for PF and 3.5?

Because most people who enjoyed 3.5 didnt enjoy 4 and went on to Pathfinder, then 5 came and many went on to 5. Some people like 4, but thats it: Some.

>>51590452
>The real question is what is up with the disparity between games and player numbers for PF and 3.5?
Have you ever seen the roll20 PF/3.5 playerbase?
A more the significant number of them are the lowest of the low fetish fags, That Guys, and overall disgusting excuses for humans who are left eternally looking for groups because they either get rejected outright with every application or get booted session 1.

>>51590342
4E's entire design philosophy was "Hey, what if me made videogamey MMO combat into a tabletop game?"

It was as bad of an idea as it sounds like and even during it's heyday people were praying for it to be over and for 5e to come out, and those that couldn't wait just went to Pathfinder.

>>51590506
That doesn't answer why there are roughly twice as many PF games as there are 3.5 ones, with about the same player sample size.

I don't know how these stats work, and whether it means that PF games have twice as many players on average, or just that PF players run a lot more games. It's also possible there's a lot of overlap between the groups, and most of them just generally play PF instead of 3.5.

>>51590564
>That doesn't answer why there are roughly twice as many PF games as there are 3.5 ones, with about the same player sample size.
Oh that? That's obvious. Because 3.5 is an old, unsupported game and Pathfinder is still in publication with new material shat out regularly.

Fucking duh.

This bait thread is proof that edition wars never actually end.

>>51590531
That's not what happened and you know it. 4e is as far from MMO as it fucking gets and is about as gamey as a beef steak.

>>51590342
I didn't think 5e was that popular.

>>51590611
Nor did I. Anecdotal, I know, but I don't know anybody who plays it.

>>51590342
Because memes are more important than quality.

>>51591048
>Because memes are more important than quality.
If that were true, 4e would have more players.

>>51590342
Roll20 is hardly an indicator of anything, though. Even for online games people don't use solely it exclusively.

>>51591072
>proves the statement true

>>51591073
+1

I actually like 5e better than the former editions, but for an online platform, 5e is just so much easier to use with a new group of randoms. Compared to the shit fest that is pathfinder, and people constantly finding the most retarded and obscure supplements to make their stupidly broken special snowflake.

5e is just easier to manage, for both players and game masters. The others are great IF you have people you know and trust. And that is a very big "if", especially on an online platform.

4e came out and it was kinda neat but it was almost impossible to get your whole group playing it. 5e came out soon after and it was the compromise you needed to get the group across to a new system.

>>51591138
The thing about Pathfinder and 3.5 is that there's so much material, so readily available, and so many ways to crack intended rules in half, that everyone has a huge backlog of insane character builds they want to try, and never enough games to try them in

>>51590797
Anecdotal as well, but pretty much everyone I know who used to play 3.PF have switched to 5e now.

>>51590342
To be fair, Roll20's stats are not the best to work with because a lot of online 4e games run on Maptool due to the well made template for it.

File: 28A9E33A-6C0A-4D68-A0A3-E63FE58117EB-1002-000001C616FB22C4_tmp.jpg (17KB, 290x290px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 290x290px

>>51590342