Investigators

55 investigators with at least 10 community-logged games. Click any investigator name for a personal dossier.

How concentrated is investigator play?

Investigator play concentration

How much of the community's play is concentrated on a few favorites. Walk left-to-right and you see how many games are accounted for by the top N most-played investigators — a steep curve means a small clique dominates; a gentle one means healthy variety. Faint bars in the background show each individual investigator's share.

N= 96,670

Win rate of the 25 most-played investigators

Win rates with a range of uncertainty shown as whiskers. Investigators stay in popularity order (most-played at top) rather than win-rate order — so you can see at a glance whether the community's favorites actually perform.

N= 96,670 HOW?

Bodyguards & Glass Cannons

Modern = standardized to modern expansion-table play (big-box games, 2018+). The with/without comparison is recomputed within comparable conditions. How this works →

Effect on winning vs. effect on casualties

Each dot is an investigator. Across the bottom: how much teams' win rate changes when this investigator is on the squad (right = wins more). Up the side: how casualties change (up = team takes more hits). Four quadrants: Bodyguard (wins, keeps people alive), Carry (wins, but at a cost), Glass Cannon (loses, but safer), Liability (worse on both fronts).

N= 96,670

Synergy

Modern = standardized to modern expansion-table play (big-box games, 2018+). Switches the forests and the network below. Most pooled pair 'synergy' is a ruleset artifact and collapses toward 1.0× under modern conditions. How this works →

Top pair synergies

The number is how much better the pair does together than apart — 1.20× means they win 20% more often as a duo. Bars whose whiskers stay entirely past the dashed 1.0× line are real chemistry; tan bars could just be noise.

N= 525

Bottom pair anti-synergies

The opposite end: pairs that win less together than each one does on their own. Bars whose whiskers stay entirely below the 1.0× line are confidently bad chemistry; tan bars could just be noise.

N= 585

Co-play network

Each circle is an investigator — bigger circle = played more, color shows how their win rate stacks up against the 60% community average (cream is on pace, red lags, green leads). Lines connect pairs with notable team chemistry: solid red = they're stronger together, dashed blue = they drag each other down. Dimmed circles have no notable pair signal. Drag, pan, and zoom to explore.

N= 55 HOW?

Rumors

Rumor frequency vs. difficulty

Each dot is a rumor card. Across the bottom: how often it shows up in logged games. Up the side: how often the community passes it. Color follows pass rate (red = often failed, green = usually passed). Top-right = common and easy (routine). Bottom-right = common and hard (frequent obstacle). Bottom-left = rare and hard (boss-tier). Top-left = rare and easy. We label the four most common plus the four hardest.

N= 27,359

Modern = rumor pass rate restricted to modern expansion-table play (big-box games, 2018+). Note the top-20 here are ranked by the all-time rate. How this works →

Rumor success rate per investigator

How often rumors get passed in games featuring each investigator — the 20 with the highest pass rate. Take this with a grain of salt: it's about who was at the table, not who actually solved the rumor — see the methodology for caveats.

N= 135,048 HOW?

Consistency vs. volatility

Modern = swing recomputed from each investigator's per-Ancient-One win rates within modern expansion-table play (big-box games, 2018+). Core investigators look steadier once their brutal base-only games drop out. How this works →

Steady hands vs. boom-or-bust

Each dot is one investigator. Across the bottom: how much their win rate jumps around across the Ancient Ones they've faced (left = steady-Eddie, right = swingy). Up the side: total games (just so the dots don't pile up). Color tracks the same swing (cool = reliable, warm = volatile). We label the three steadiest and the three swingiest to keep the chart readable.

N= 96,670

The full roster

All investigators

Sorted by total games played. Click any name for the per-investigator dossier.

N= 96,670
InvestigatorGamesWin rate95% CI
Charlie 4,860 61.2% [60%, 63%]
Lily 4,755 54.5% [53%, 56%]
Jacqueline 4,439 62.0% [61%, 63%]
Diana 4,190 54.5% [53%, 56%]
Trish 3,861 53.6% [52%, 55%]
Akachi 3,852 53.4% [52%, 55%]
Leo 3,635 51.7% [50%, 53%]
Norman 3,370 53.9% [52%, 56%]
Silas 3,368 51.8% [50%, 53%]
Jim 3,217 54.2% [52%, 56%]
Mark 3,161 48.4% [47%, 50%]
Lola 2,832 54.2% [52%, 56%]
Ursula 2,634 67.9% [66%, 70%]
Daisy 2,347 67.0% [65%, 69%]
Agnes 2,124 61.2% [59%, 63%]
"Skids" 2,033 63.2% [61%, 65%]
Zoey 1,930 58.2% [56%, 60%]
Jenny 1,774 68.7% [66%, 71%]
Patrice 1,611 61.5% [59%, 64%]
Monterey 1,551 64.1% [62%, 67%]
Tommy 1,476 59.8% [57%, 62%]
Marie 1,472 62.2% [60%, 65%]
Wilson 1,392 58.5% [56%, 61%]
Mary 1,378 68.4% [66%, 71%]
Dexter 1,354 62.7% [60%, 65%]
George 1,326 62.3% [60%, 65%]
Mandy 1,304 64.1% [61%, 67%]
Luke 1,292 71.8% [69%, 74%]
Minh 1,280 68.2% [66%, 71%]
Finn 1,261 55.9% [53%, 59%]
Hank 1,231 57.5% [55%, 60%]
Tony 1,201 55.2% [52%, 58%]
Wendy 1,199 65.0% [62%, 68%]
Rex 1,125 66.8% [64%, 70%]
Pete 1,108 70.1% [67%, 73%]
Bob 1,028 68.0% [65%, 71%]
Michael 1,023 61.8% [59%, 65%]
Joe 1,020 59.6% [57%, 63%]
Kate 1,016 65.8% [63%, 69%]
Agatha 949 73.1% [70%, 76%]
William 887 63.1% [60%, 66%]
Rita 880 62.3% [59%, 65%]
Harvey 865 61.6% [58%, 65%]
Roland 828 67.6% [64%, 71%]
Daniela 755 69.0% [66%, 72%]
Gloria 753 66.4% [63%, 70%]
Mateo 730 66.2% [63%, 70%]
Carolyn 717 66.7% [63%, 70%]
Preston 700 69.6% [66%, 73%]
Darrell 651 64.2% [60%, 68%]
Sefina 636 70.6% [67%, 74%]
Vincent 620 63.5% [60%, 67%]
Calvin 590 62.5% [59%, 66%]
Amanda 564 61.5% [57%, 65%]
Carson 515 69.9% [66%, 74%]