General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
One thing I find interesting about the poll results is that those who dislike the game comprise 55% of the poll...and that they are nearly evenly split between those who did and did not like the game when it came out.
OTOH, of the respondents who like 4Ed, less than 6% of them are people who changed their minds.
That's pretty polarized, and its not a good stat for 4Ed in terms of winning converts from previous editions. If this is actually indicative of the true nature of the RW D&D market as it stands now, it means that most of 4Ed's continuing success will depend mainly on those new to D&D with 4Ed.
Seriously. EVERY week we have this kind of poll. You don't need it that often.
Hey speak for yourself I need my weekly h4te fix
Quote:
It serves no useful purpose other than to crap on the system you do not like. When is enough enough? When will people just be satisfied with the game they chose rather than insisting on telling everyone how much they dislike the system the did not choose, and seeking some sort of external affirmation from others that their choice was valid or popular?
Seriously, this thread isn't even about that. Many posters explained how they ended up liking 4e. No one tried to convince them that they were wrong (even though they clearly are )
__________________
_ Ceterum censeo the encounter/daily power system is an unholy blight upon D&Ddom
5e can't come soon enough
Last edited by lutecius; 27th February 2009 at 03:18 AM..
One thing I find interesting about the poll results is that those who dislike the game comprise 55% of the poll...and that they are nearly evenly split between those who did and did not like the game when it came out.
OTOH, of the respondents who like 4Ed, less than 6% of them are people who changed their minds.
That's pretty polarized, and its not a good stat for 4Ed in terms of winning converts from previous editions. If this is actually indicative of the true nature of the RW D&D market as it stands now, it means that most of 4Ed's continuing success will depend mainly on those new to D&D with 4Ed.
I think it's more indicative of the fact that this site started as a 3e community and so the numbers are skewed here as a matter of system loyalty. I would be surprised if you got the same results if you polled at other places.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
Dude, if you feel the topic is a forum-crap, thread-crapping is not a constructive response. Have you not noticed that fighting fire with fire around here just generates the taste of ash in everyone's mouth?
Everyone, please remember - Nobody forces you to read a thread. If you don't like it, go to one of the hundreds of others available.
Reason #1: GSL.
Reason #2: 4E is more narrativist than simulationist. There are systems which I prefer for narrativist approach.
Reason #3: 4E treatment of existing settings, lacking support for transition to the new system.
Warning: Rant ahead, not entirely on topic.
There are very good alternatives to 4E out there. For 3.5 fans there is 3.5 in numerous variations. For fans of simplified and unified resolution system, there are True20, M&M, C&C. If you want over the top fantasy, try Exalted.
I am against stifling creativity or monopolizing the market. I prefer straight competition instead of strangling publishers. So GSL was and is still a final dealbreaker for me.
Finally, to me book burning for _any_ reason is wrong (yes, I am a "bookophile"). Nothing changed this opinion of mine and this is the ultimate reason I am unlikely to support anything by WotC... anyone may point that it was both within d20 STL license and GSL license and therefore a legal thing. Still, I feel really bad about that, and to me it still constitutes abuse of legal system.
There should be at least terms for graceful expiration and possible mandatory release to public domain of licensed content instead of voiding right to exist.
Regards,
Ruemere
__________________ Keeper of Scarred Lands Repository. Keep your .sig fit - save space and bandwidth.
Last edited by ruemere; 27th February 2009 at 03:21 AM..
I think it's more indicative of the fact that this site started as a 3e community and so the numbers are skewed here as a matter of system loyalty. I would be surprised if you got the same results if you polled at other places.
Well there is Paizo and Wotc boards as well. I think the results would be different at those two locations.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Another way of looking at it is that only 22% of respondents to this poll were negatively influenced by the actual game. 78% of respondents (likely including self-selection bias in favor of those who changed their mind for the worse, since that's the thread title and such people are more likely to respond when they feel that their opinion in particular is being solicited) either like the game or weren't going to play it anyway. Furthermore, this is the internet, where one can be reasonably assured that your average tabletop RPG player isn't going to frequent because it's just another past-time. ENWorld (and most RPG sites out there) are populated primarily by the "hardcore" among the hobby, and such people inevitably see themselves as above the casual - this fosters a sense of collective elitism, which in turn fosters conservatism (used here as hostility towards change).
Given what objective evidence we have of 4th Edition's success, threads like this have little purpose, if any. They simply perpetuate an echo chamber mentality, which I think most would agree isn't helpful to a community at all.
Given what objective evidence we have of 4th Edition's early success and following decline less than a year in, threads like this have little purpose, if any. They simply perpetuate an echo chamber mentality, which I think most would agree isn't helpful to a community at all.
(BTW: My initial negative was 100% influenced by the actual game)
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
Not sure how to vote. I went from "Really?" to "It's awful!" to "What a brilliant idea." to "Brilliant idea, irritating execution." My initial negative went away when I realized what they were trying to do. Then some of it came back as I delved into the particulars of the system. I salute them for making a new type of RPG, but am not happy with the details.
I went form slightly negative to um neutral with a negative foundation.
Basically I still think the core powers system and other core system points are really bad, but it is easy to run and I'm lazy so I am generally neutral. On the bright side the players seem to like the system, so for the group it went from mixed bad depending on who you were talking to, to a positive opinion.
__________________ There is no force in the universe strong enough to protect you from your own stupidity.
I voted option 4, but I enjoy playing 4e. A more accurate chronological description of my position is:
At Gen Con announcement: Questioning the necessity of 4e. Surprised and disappointed at the quality of the powerpoint presentation. Optimistic that WOTC had some good ideas. Overall opinion: 4e would be two steps forward, one step back, a minor-to-moderate net gain.
Through pre-release publicity, leaks, teasers: Still questioning the necessity of 4e. Cautiously optimistic. Appreciating Ari's promising us something really cool that hadn't been revealed yet (I think that must have been skill challenges). Appalled at some things like the Pit Fiend MM release because of the poor writing. Very worried that Chris Perkins and Rich Baker did not have a direct hand in the design. Remaining hopeful and having faith. Scared at 1-1-1-1 over 1-2-1-2. At the end, really liking skill challenges. Overall opinion: 4e would be a step and a half forward, one step back, a minor net gain.
Release: Disappointed with the books. The writing was insulting (the Pathfinder paragon path has no powers that help the character find paths, MM claims demons feel no fear and also feel fear, words are frequently used without meaning). The layout was not ornate, or alluring, or beautiful. Still liking skill challenges. Surprised that combat felt different while noncombat felt the same (I expected the opposite for some reason). Overall opinion: Undecided.
Now: Not questioning the necessity of 4e at all. If folks wanted to play like this, then heck yeah, 4e was necessary. I still like skill challenges (a lot). I still enjoy playing 4e. But it's not my preferred game. Overall opinion: 4e was no steps forward, no steps back. It was two or three steps sideways.
So, although I can and do enjoy playing 4e, I think I should vote #4. Partly because I've been skeptical, albeit hopeful, from the start. Partly because it's not my preferred game whereas 3.x was. Partly because I feel sad that my old friend D&D has taken a turn I wish he hadn't.
I was excited VERY early on. By very early on I mean when they announced 4e. My enthusiasm dwindled immediately when they started letting out the details. I think it's a bad system, and it's doomed. Look at the poll here: the haters still hating and the lovers still loving doesn't say anything, but 22% of those who were initially excited changed their mind while only 6% of those who initially didn't like it changed their mind. As time goes on, more people decide they don't like it than decide they do. I only hope it doesn't kill the DND franchise all together. The dwindling excitement coupled with a rough economy means there's a real good chance Hasbro will drop the line all together. Best case scenerio is that a company like Paizo or Mongoose will pick buy it, worste case scenerio is that nobody buys it and it just ceases to exist.
Another way of looking at it is that only 22% of respondents to this poll were negatively influenced by the actual game. 78% of respondents (likely including self-selection bias in favor of those who changed their mind for the worse, since that's the thread title and such people are more likely to respond when they feel that their opinion in particular is being solicited) either like the game or weren't going to play it anyway. Furthermore, this is the internet, where one can be reasonably assured that your average tabletop RPG player isn't going to frequent because it's just another past-time. ENWorld (and most RPG sites out there) are populated primarily by the "hardcore" among the hobby, and such people inevitably see themselves as above the casual - this fosters a sense of collective elitism, which in turn fosters conservatism (used here as hostility towards change).
Given what objective evidence we have of 4th Edition's success, threads like this have little purpose, if any. They simply perpetuate an echo chamber mentality, which I think most would agree isn't helpful to a community at all.
That's an extremely skewed way to look at it. By that same logic, a statement that only 6% of respondants were postitively influenced by the actual game is every bit as accurate and paints a far bleaker picture.
That's an extremely skewed way to look at it. By that same logic, a statement that only 6% of respondants were postitively influenced by the actual game is every bit as accurate and paints a far bleaker picture.
What can we extrapolate from the feelings of a subset of the subset of people who were motivated to respond to a poll on a site that caters to a subset of gamers? I don't see the results as indicating anything at all about the population of gamers as a whole. Any attempt to bolster or bruise 4e using this poll is on shaky ground.
What "objective" evidence would that be? Meaningless internet polls and forum comments from h4ters and their alts? What a joke.
The only objective evidence out there is actual WotC sales figures.
I don't know about 'objective evidence', but my 'Barnes & Nobles Test' (How much space is devoted to RPG's? What percentage of that is D&D?) suggests that D&D is in a weaker position now in the market than it has been in about 10 years.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
I don't know about 'objective evidence', but my 'Barnes & Nobles Test' (How much space is devoted to RPG's? What percentage of that is D&D?) suggests that D&D is in a weaker position now in the market than it has been in about 10 years.
Do you mean since the release of 4e? Or in general over that 10 year time frame?
And just the one store?
I've got six GSs, many of them FLGSs. They are selling 4e like gangbusters.
One of them is also selling 3.5 faster than he can find stock.
Anyway I voted positive and I still like it. The fact is though, that I was positive and then I got the PHB and the section on powers. My heart sank. I didn't like the idea. I like them now, I've come to appreciate what they were targeting and accomplished with them. Its a very neat and subtle mind trick.
Last edited by darjr; 27th February 2009 at 07:41 AM..
I need my weekly h4te fix
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
