So, this got passed to me and I was told I can share it.

Greetings WFRPers -

Great news to share. The article links to a chart of the Top 5 Roleplaying Games reflecting sales in Q4 2009. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

www.icv2.com/articles/news/17087.html

Top 5 Roleplaying Games -- Q4 2009

Title Publisher
1 Dungeons and Dragons Wizards of the Coast
2 Pathfinder Paizo Publishing
3 Warhammer Fantasy RPG Fantasy Flight Games
4 Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy Fantasy Flight Games
5 World of Darkness White Wolf/CCP

Considering WFRP was only on sale for 11 weeks in Q4, that's amazing... even moreso considering the core set competed against the entire D&D and Pathfinder lines.

Pretty good sales figures, assuming the article's fact are solid (which I'm not doubting).

Just thought I'd share the good news.

That is good to hear.

If companies don't give out sales figures for individual products, how is this determine?

"The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers."

Yes, as mentioned, it seems it is based on asking the retailers, distributors, and manufacturers. We don't know if it was number based, or merely "what are your top 5 selling RPGs, in order" type question. It also seems to include the entire line of products, not just individual products. So, anything D&D related (as far as RPG), including sourcebooks and core books and adventures is included in the D&D category. Since WFRP3 only has the Core Set (Q4 ended before the Toolkit was available) the WFRP category obviously can only include the Core Set. Not a bad showing compared to the prolific lines of D&D and Pathfinder (basically D&D still). What's more impressive to me, is both WFRP and DH/RT beating out WoD for 3rd. WoD has an awful lot of books and a big following.

Based on the article, we're only dealing with Q4 of 2009. That basically means that WFRP 3rd was competing with other games only releasing supplements. None of the other games listed in the top five put out a "Core" rulebook product to compete.

I think that's the main reason why WFRP 3e did so well in comparison.

It is still interesting that it made it into the top 3 with that price point though.

LeBlanc13 said:

Well pathfinder's core book was released close to Q4, and considering the only other product was a monster manual (another core book), really most of it's sales were core books. (unless you count the magazines)

LeBlanc13 said:

I don't think this is new releases only. It is sales in the quarter. So, any D&D core rulebooks sold during Q4 would apply to the count for D&D, for example.

Now, granted that new releases make for a larger sales bump.

What I'm stating is they are comparing the release of an entirely new edition of a game to sales from other companies supplemental products.

I think if you put sales of WFRP 3e boxed set sold during it's first 3 months up against the numbers of core rulebooks D&D or FFG put out for DH and RT in their first three months of sales, you'd see that WFRP is probably flagging behind all of those products. Since we're dealing with those D&D, DH and RT putting out supplemental products out during those same months, the comparison is not fair.

Anyway, I'm not trying to prove this. It's just my opinion and I've got nothing to back it up.

@Sinister: Good point on the Pathfinder MM being released in that quarter. That would be a competative product, but we don't know how far ahead of WFRP the sales of the PF MM really were. It's possible there was a HUGE gap there... or possibly they were very close in sales.

LeBlanc13 said:

Yeah. Core book sales are always going to be the best sales for an RPG. Thus in the case of pathfinder and warhammer it's required products are being purchased. Even if you don't like it, it proves how well DnD sells as that quarter was all supplement books you don't necessarily need to play the game the real test for pathfinder and Warhammer will be Q4 of this year..

@LeBlanc

Ah, I understand what you're saying but I don't think you are exactly correct. WFRP3's numbers are 'inflated' somewhat due to it being the initial core set released in that quarter. I'm with you on that. However, there are always continuing sales of core books. During Q4 '09 D&D still probably sold a hefty volume of core rulebooks, despite Q4 not being the initial 3 months of D&D's core release (and hence, little in the way of 'boosted' sales). Stil, they are not "comparing the release of an entirely new edition of a game to sales from other game companies supplemental products."

It is a comparison of the release of an entirely new edition of a game to other game companies' newly released supplemental products as well as normal core product sales during the quarter.

I agree, if you put D&D and Pathfinder's first 3 months of core set sales comparable to WFRP3 you'll probably see a wider division. WFRP has always lagged behind in sales (and popularity) to D&D and D&D products, though. However, and this is just personal opinion of course, I wouldn't be so sure about DH/RT selling more in the first 3 months. Both seemed to sell well, and I wouldn't say it's clear cut without some empirical research.

dvang said:

Not sure about "hefty". Most DnD players who don't have a player's handbook at this point are waiting to acquire one. Mostly due to the 100 pages of errata on the game. The new rules compendium will have all the updates.

Just speaking from my view at my FLGS in Orlando, Florida, it would certainly appear that WFRP3 is doing well. When I was last there a little over a month ago they barely had any product for the game on their shelves (in fact it was just tucked away on a counter near the register far from the other rpgs). Now, they have a whole shelf full of WFRP3 products and DHRT, complete with a huge Warhammer banner. I can only assume that means the products are selling quite well in the area, especially considering said shelf is right in the front of the store, and is usually almost always full of the new D&D supplement instead.

MSpookshow said:

Not sure about "hefty". Most DnD players who don't have a player's handbook at this point are waiting to acquire one. Mostly due to the 100 pages of errata on the game. The new rules compendium will have all the updates.

"Hefty" could be a misnomer on my part. I meant that merely the fact that D&D has so many players and is so well known, the 'later purchase' buys of core books will simply be higher than most RPGs. These core book buys include D&D players that waited (for money reasons, expected gifts, waiting until played to see how they liked it, etc) to buy the core books until after the initial release. These core book purchases also include new players being introduced to D&D, RPG collectors, and others. There is always additional core book sales after release.

For example, some friends of mine are thinking of starting a WoD campaign and have invited me and my wife to play. Now, I haven't played WoD since the early 90's with V:TM ... (old WoD) so I'd need to buy a new rulebook ... plus possibly supplemental books, etc. Actually, having leafed through the books at the store, I might just buy them anyway because they're actually pretty nice-looking with some great writing/stories, even if I don't use them for a game. That's an example of these additional core and supplement, non-recent release, purchases that happen every day (I'm talking nation-wide, not a specific store of course). If I had friends who wanted to play D&D 4th, and invited me to play, I'd need to buy those books too (as I last played at 3.0). D&D, merely by virtue of being so prolific and so well known, will tend to have a 'heftier' share of these everyday purchases over smaller and more niche-like RPGs. That's all I meant to say.

LeBlanc13 said:

True, though RT was really only released in Q4 as well and WFRP outsold both it and DH together - and the Radicals Handbook was a long awaited DH release.

So, looking at the competition - D&D is always going to be number one. No contest there.

Pathfinder has sold amazingly well, but there was a lot of build up, marketing and hype prior to its release. It has essentially claimed the spot of D&D 3.X's rebel child, intended for the many players who were unhappy with the transition to 4ed. It's initial massive sales were to be expected, the real test will be in future supplements.

While DH is past it prime in terms of sales, RT is brand new and I'm very surprised that WFRP managed to outsell it, considering the cost.

White Wolf are in a strange position now, as they are currently releasing next to nothing. Supposedly this is a short term thing.

Still, despite all the factors that have to be taken into account with these figures, they are very impressive. They essentially confirm that initial sales of WFRP 3 are high enough to be considered a success in and of themselves. Whether the game continues to do so will depend on the successful sales of supplements. Q1 sales figures will be very interesting.

Though I don't actually play it, I am over the moon that despite considerable obstacles in it's way (not the least of which has been constant 4venger black propaganda painting anyone who plays it as some kind of hopeless grognard) Pathfinder is at Number 2. That is great news!

It proves to me that old school rpg books and good customer service such as Paizo consistently provides, and rpg books that give plenty of setting detail are still popular and do still sell. I knew it, but it's nice to see it in black and white.

I look forward to games companies moving back to that model.

Adam France said:

Well no offense, but the 4E haters started the incessant attacks on 4E. The 4E guys would have never even bashed the game if 4E wasn't attacked so rentlessly by simulationists. I've got nothing against pathfinder, but I I do like the 4E gamist approach mainly because I'm in it for adventure not simulation. Luckly now everyone has choice which is far better than being forced to play something you never cared for because it happened to be what everyone else was playing.

Adam France said:

Wait, did you just say 3E was Old School?

3E almost caused me to quit RPGs for how shclocky and lame it was. Fortunately DC Heroes kept me playing and WFRP 2E came along and resparked my interest in the hobby.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Yeah, that's what I thought. That goes with 'WFRP2 is for Grognards" to make me feel old.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Oh I don't like the 3e system particularly either, and don't use it. However Pathfinder is what I'd describe as a 'real' rpg, it doesn't require a board, cards, minis, etc etc, and Paizo have an old school love of and focus on setting detail which you just don't see with the new wave games. That's what I mean when I say 'old school'; a traditional rpg, with loads of focus on setting and fluff, where the word vague in relation to setting/fluff is nowhere to be seen.

Adam France said:

Again, what?

Old Shool, to me, is more like the classic OD&D Moldvey Era of games. (Red, Blue, Green, Black, Gold box sets) which were essenially ules heavy (but simple rules for the most part) fluff light. You wanted fluff you had to go out and buy supplements for the setting or make your own. I actually in geneal dislike systems that come with thier own inbuilt fluff unless I am buying a game based on a pre-existing setting (Star Wars, WFRP, 40K, TMNT and so forth). Campaign specific settings began to become more popular in the mid 1980s following a wave of licensed game titles.

Having bought Pathfinder, the worst part of it was them thrusting their own setting on the buyer.

Pathfinder is more a reminder of games from the1990s to me. Which may seem old school, but I see it more as Middle School (as opposed to many games today which feel like Pre-School to me, oooooh shiny).

Peacekeeper_b said:

Each to their own.

Personally I'm very glad Pathfinder is doing so well, as imo each sale of Pathfinder is a sale deprived from 4e, which is an abomination imo. I hope this will disuade other companies for going the 4e (new wave) route; ie a near-tabletop game with minor non-combat rules and an aversion to detailed fluff.

I'm glad a traditional rpg is doing so well. Long live the Rebels!

Adam France said:

MRoxs said:

3X is different 1E and 2E and in fact has one thing in common with 4E, at least if you believe the "this game is WoW crowd":. its design intent was to make it compatiable with computer games. The rules of 3E were created with computer games in mind, according to one of the designers who I've had the fortune of being friends with for years. The removal of negative math and skill proficencies was to help people at bioware just as much as players. It's very easy to see it was designed by old school gamers with an eye to the future as a battlegrid and 5 foot squares became common and made a game for the common sense add on of minis. Of course 4E takes this idea and just says "we don't need to define a square as a 5 foot area because it's a game, it's a square." Now that we've seen 4 edtions of DnD you start to see it's progression to what it is today, and how it changed between all editions.

The one thing that 4E is NOT, which designers of 3E wanted. was a game for simulationists. If you wanted to play a gnome barbarian, who is trained as a monk, and is a good swimmer but a horrible climber, and who knows a few cantrips he learned from a wizard, while spending time as a jewlers apprentice learning how to appraise gems, while one of the customers taught him how to forge documents, well that's not what 4E is a about. In fact athletics, which now is a skill for both climbing and swimming, is a good example. It's frutstrating to some not to be able to define their character with a much fine detail as making a difference between climb and swim, while other players feel the times that distinction was needed in a 20 level game could be counted on one hand, so why not make it easier, quicker, and less to track?

It's really hard for me not to compare this new version of Warhammer to 4E, at least for the idea of action/power cards. The new way of organizing modern RPGs is great. With cards, you take full and complete text which was often shorthand written on a character sheet and place it on the table without the need to look up rules. Say what you will about power and action cards, but for me it's less confustion, debate, and look up time, compared to traditional RPGS. As for the set up and take down time, if FFG would make a Character Builder like Wizards you could add the actions cards to the character sheet, which would seriously make the game quicker to set up and take down.

Of course there are differences, for instance, 4E has done things to create a wide open "generic" settings, going so far as to do things like pull the Vistani from Ravenloft to use them in any setting. This appeals to many as a nice "player option" while to some, particularly setting purists, it's seen as ridonkulus. I think that the new version of warhammer keeps the same tone, setting, and fluff, as it always had and players like that and that's a big difference between V3 warhammer and 4E DnD 's "here's a canvas, play anything" approach. And of course DnD central mechanic of d20 stays the same while Warhammer went a different direction to try some interesting new dice ideas.