Changeover Poll

[Edena_of_Neith]

We're past 500 votes (539.)

And we have:

Changeover: 32%
No Changeover: 57%
Partial Changeover: 19%

If I may make a guess, as the pollster, I believe many people view Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, and others to be 'earlier' editions of D&D, and that's why the (almost) 60/30 split.

The number of people taking option 6 (tried 4E, went back to earlier editions) is large, 3 out of every 10 poll respondents.
If that were factored out, the Changeover versus No Changeover ratio would be an even 50/50 split.

 

[Derren]

we're past 500 votes (539.)

and we have:

Changeover: 32%
no changeover: 57%
partial changeover: 19%

32+57+19 = 108% ?

 

[Jasperak]

If I may make a guess, as the pollster, I believe many people view Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, and others to be 'earlier' editions of D&D, and that's why the (almost) 60/30 split.

The number of people taking option 6 (tried 4E, went back to earlier editions) is large, 3 out of every 10 poll respondents.
If that were factored out, the Changeover versus No Changeover ratio would be an even 50/50 split.

Don't you mean if you factor out the people that did NOT give 4e a chance, there is a 50/50 split between the people that have played 4e. Or to put it more clearly - of the people that tried 4e and responded, half of them went to an earlier edition or different game altogether.

I am not sure what you mean by factoring out the people that tried 4e and decided to go elsewhere for their gaming needs.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Our group has come to a consensus that works for us on rules questions and winging it. Obviously if the DM makes an arbitrary ruling and nobody notices then no problem. If the DM makes a ruling that somebody disagrees with then it is brought to everyones attention, if any rules lawyer (or anyone else) can open a book and point to the official rule in about 30 seconds the DM has the option of accepting the official rule or declaring that his ruling will be a new house rule. If the official rule can't be found in 30 seconds then the DM ruling stands for the rest of the session. Anyone can decide to look up and point out the official rule after that session is over and the DM then has the option to accept it in future sessions (no-retconning) or to house rule it for future sessions.

This keeps the game moving and rules lawyers have a chance both in game and after game to present their case. Probably 95% of the rules dispute are settled by the official rules and only 5% of arbitrary rulings get houseruled. Our players don't mope ingame because they know they will have a chance to fully study and present thier case before future sessions fix the rule in place. If out of game apealls go against the player they have a couple of days to get the moping over with before we play again.

 

[Jasperak]

32+57+19 = 108% ?

It should read:
Complete Changeover: 32%
No Changeover: 57%
Partial Changeover: 11%

Edena added the second option to both complete and partial changeover instead of just complete.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don't you mean if you factor out the people that did NOT give 4e a chance,

You really have no idea of why people didn't sit down to play a game of 4Ed. The fact that they haven't doesn't mean they "did not give 4E a chance."

Personally, I've been playing since 1977. At my peak, I owned over 100 different RPG systems. I've played at least a few dozen more, including some playtests (some games went to market, some didn't).

I'm pretty sure I can judge whether a game is worth my time to try by a thorough read-through of the rules...which is what I did for 4Ed.

My opinion was that it was a mechanically balanced game with many good features, but with many, many more that I didn't like at all. For me, there was no point in playing the game as a DM. Given the fact that nobody else in my game group (10 guys, all with at least 10 years gaming experience, most with DMing experience) wanted to DM it after a read-through either, that was it.

It may not seem like it to you, but by my definition, I gave it a fair shake and found it wanting.

If you think I haven't, find a copy of F.A.T.A.L. and apply the same standard- if you actually give it a playtest after reading the rules, I'd be surprised.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you think I haven't, find a copy of F.A.T.A.L. and apply the same standard- if you actually give it a playtest after reading the rules, I'd be surprised.

I got as far as character creation, but I decided I'd be damned if I was going to play a character so lacking in "length" and "girth."

I play RPGs to escape reality.

 

[Scribble]

There's no functional mechanical difference between 4e, where DCs are not exactly spelled out in some way, and a 3e game where the DM "wings it" with DCs that are not exactly spelled out in some way.

Except for the mystical part, wherein 4e gives you "permission" to wing it and now everybody is ok with that. Yay, 4e fixed it!

That's entirely mystical. It is dependent on the players' acceptance of the variation, not the system.

It has nothing to do with permission. I don't get where you're getting this idea from?

The functional difference is that the rules written in the book show the idea of DCs changing, and that sometimes achallange may be harder or easier then another time you've encountered something similar.

The rule the lawyer ends up falling back on is that DCs are not set numbers. They're variable based on whatever challange level the DM needs.

So I'm happy because I can continue setting difficulties based on how hard I want soemthing to be, and the lawyer is happy because he no longer assumes something is a certain number.

I don't have an issue with you having fun. I have an issue with magical thinking. Your players' ability to lighten up and have fun with a new system has nothing to do with the system other than its newness.

See above. You don't know my group. Stop thinking your omnicient.

If you have a different play experience then I have, cool. Good for you. Continue playing however you'd like.

Let's say that starting tomorrow, every game session I run, I am going to wear a red T-shirt that says, "My House, My Rules." Amazingly, my players lighten up, there are no more arguments, and everybody has fun.

Should I attribute the new and improved game to the players, to the system, or to the red T-shirt?

And if your answer is, "The red T-shirt!" how much are you willing to pay me for it?

Great so make up some kind of argument I'm not making, then attribute it to me, in order to prove some strange point you seem like you're hell bent on proving?

Well you win dude. Have fun with your shirt.

 

[Greg K]

I second what Dannyalcatraz wrote, because that is pretty much my experience as well (although, I started with DND in 1979 and, thankfully, only know of FATAL from mention on internet forums).

 

[JeffB]

I can only go by what I've seen so far in my games. I could be completely wrong. When 3e came out I was originally happy and thought all the rules spelled out clearly would lessen the rules lawyers... But then I found out it didn't, and seemed to encourage them

This.

Exactly my experience. No thanks.

I think it's human nature for many people to "game the system" whether it's D&D or professional sports, or computer games or whatever. The more complicated and complete the rules the more people try to exploit them/take them as far as they can. This is a huge issue I have with RPGs and players in general-and have since I was a kid. I've always avoided "rules lawyers" like the plague, and am quite clear that I don't put up with that BS at my table-find another group. When systems are less defined and open to some interpretation, things run smoother overall AS LONG ASa DM's rulings are consistent and fair

IMO..YMMV..AFAIC...These people are actors, consult a lawyer before making any decisions, Call your Dr. if your erection lasts longer than 5 hours, etc etc blah blah blah