What would it take for 4E to win over the old guard? (Forked Thread: Changeover Poll)

What does 4E need to do to win old timers over?


Assuming by "old guard" you mean the "relatively new guard", that is, the 3E fans (and not the AD&D fans or the original D&D fans):

The only way 4E can win over the "old guard" is by changing into something that is decidedly not 4E.

And this ain't gonna happen.

By the time of any new edition, winning over any set of old guards is financially irrelevant.

Well, the great majority of OD&D/1e/2e fans did convert to 3e. We did, everyone I know did. I've been playing RPGs 29 years, and bought into 3.x more heavily than any other game system, ever. 4e hasn't had the same impact though, especially with the other players in our group. I've at least bought several books, read them, and I'm interested in trying it (though I'd want to make significant rules changes if I ran a campaign of it). Others in our group haven't even looked at it and have little interest in doing so. Still others looked it over and didn't like what they saw, enough that they don't even care to try it out.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Without trying to cause trouble, it needs to be something different. WOTC made a great game. 4E is a great game, but it is not the game I most want to play. There is nothing WOTC can do to make 4E the best game for me to play. And there is no reason for them to do so.
 

The only way it could've happened is by 4e being a better game [than 3e]. This didn't happen, unfortunately. It could even have been a truly fixed 3e, and I wouild've bought it, without a doubt. Might have been playing it now, even. I've bought rulebooks on that basis (i.e., '3e, only better!'), so there's even a precedent there. :)

But anyway, the odd numbers seem to have it. 5e might be worth buying. But unless things change in some fundamental ways, that's very unlikely.
 

You have to remember: it takes a great deal of creative effort on the part of DMs, social effort to convince people to learn a new system, and money.

I would have to have confidence that there were well-written adventures, such as those produced by Paizo, for me to change over. I'm not going back to creating things out of whole cloth: that way lies DM burnout.

Unfortunately, WotC has burned its bridges with me as a consumer of their published adventures. So many of them have been poor, with the exception of Red Hand of Doom (James Jacobs, Richard Baker) and Sons of Gruumsh. The fact that I now have to buy their adventures sight unseen through a subscription means that I won't be able to give them a second chance through idly picking up a Dungeon magazine at a FLGS.

The fact that they went out of their way to undo their legacy of encouraging 3PP through the mysteriously receding GSL takes the cake. Now, they have to persuade me that I'm supporting my hobby again, as they had with the OGL, and not some corporate giant out to squish smaller companies and deter competition.

And that whole "getting healed up to full without magic" thing put me off.
 
Last edited:

Hmmm, our group with a collective 160+ years of RPG experience has been having fun with 4e since release, despite some flaws.

The group is going to be surprised to hear that they weren't supposed to like it.
 

It's a funny position I find myself in: at twenty-five years I'm a young newb by EN World's standards, but it's OD&D that has completely won me over during the past six months. I still play in a weekly 4E group (and we're having a good time since the group is great), but I'm not terribly interested in future products for the new edition, and neither would I complain if the group decided to switch to another system entirely. Although my gut feeling is that what is good for 4E is good for the hobby in general, what I would really like to see is loads of new material for OD&D this year. I hope Carcosa is a sign of things to come.

Having said that, Fifth Element's position in regards to the editions of D&D is the one I find the most appealing at the moment.
 

I use multiple RPG systems and D&D 3.0 is one of them. In its surrent version the 4th edition is definitely not for me. I read the core books, finding some changes and ideas I really liked, but as a whole the game is unplayable for me and my group.
It would be possible to modify the game so that I would like it without discarding the main ideas, but, sadly, I don't expect it to happen.

The main changes D&D 4.0 needs to win me:

1. More fluff for players. Descriptions of races speak nearly exclusively of their virtues and strongly focus on combat and adventuring aspects. They are advertisements, not something I may base my character's background on. If dragonborn value honor and valor, how does it shape their society? How are all kinds of non-combatants treated? What do they do to those who betray these values? If clans and traditions are important to dwarves, how does a clan's structure look like? Who is in charge there? How are titles and positions inherited? What are male and female responsibilities?
I understand that PCs are heroes, not common members of their races and societies. But they come from somewhere. To be able to play my character as something more than a skirmish miniature I need to know what experiences shaped him, what could he come to love or hate. I cannot roleplay in void.

2. More monster fluff for DM. I felt really insulted by MM consisting of nothing more than statblocks. Bare numbers mean nothing - a monster needs ecology. Where does it live? If it's not solitary, how big the groups are and how organized? Why is it dangerous, why does it attack people or do some other nasty things? What other monsters may it cooperate with, why and for what goals?
To be able to prepare an adventure with monsters I need to know how they interact. Without it all I may do is putting them randomly in dungeon rooms. Of course, I can make the fluff up myself - but then, why would I play a game that only gives me half the monster manual instead of a whole one (even if it had only half the monsters)?

3. Tools for creating nonlinear adventures. All the system gives me are combat encounters and skill challanges, The skill challanges have no connection with what they represent - I need to select skills and difficulties, but they are based on party level, not on what the challenge is about. As a result, I need to either predict everything what my players will do (railroading them whan they do something else) or improvise most of the interactions.
My adventures typically consist of NPCs and locations, with little fixed "plot". I don't know what the players will do. If they decide to sneak and search baron's rooms in the night instead of fighting him or negotiating, I must be able to decide how hard it will be based on how rich and how paranoid he is - and, possibly, on what the party did to him previously. Skill challanges are a great tool, but to be really useful they need rules to determine skills and difficulties based on what they are to represent.

4. Consistent world, taking into account powers that are present in it. It was bad enough with 3.0 and middleage-like castles giving no protection against low-level mage with Fly and Fireball. It is even worse in 4.0 with every eldarin able to teleport for short distances. Both are results of designing the system with only skirmish combat in mind and disregarding how the world as a whole works.
Sometimes it goes the other way, like with paladins - now of any alignment, but limited by the mechanics to powers representing light and glory. If we are to have evil paladins, put some dark, vile and thecherous powers on their list.

5. Call things what they are, instead of giving strange and confusing explanations. Hit points would work well as either lucky dodges (with no powers described as healing) or as real wounds (with heroes being just supernaturally hard) - but not as both at the same time. While HPs are the example most often used, there are other similar issues in the game. Correcting them would help putting the game world and the mechanics in line and greatly improve immersion.
 

It's too late for 4E to be the game I want to play.

Not only is the game an issue, but the content of the product line is way too sparse for my tastes. I expect my official D&D books to be a good value, packed with info. To give an example, compare the 3E and 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting books. The 3E one is densly packed with info, while the 4E one has a much larger font and less content. Hey, there are those that like that style, but I am certainly not one of them. (Although actually I'm surprised at how many people are willing to overlook this.)

All of the 4E books I have perused in the store are like this. No thanks.
 

Basic precepts of 4e mechanics:
Standard modifier: like
Monsters and PCs are different: dislike
Per day/per encounter/at will powers for all classes: dislike (vehemently)
Class roles: dislike

On top of those fundamental things, there's a ton of other stuff I have problems with; core races, classes, cosmology, price of the books, even the look of them. I have gone from cautiously optimistic to a state of the more I see the less I like. What I would have bought is basically 3e with changed math and a better magic system (better than 3e and 4e). So they're not winning me over no matter how many new classes come out.

For the record, I'm 23.
 

I'm in my late 20s. If I or my mid 20ish group of gamers are in any way a representative demographic of the "Old Guard" that WotC hasn't won over for 4e, because it's not even an option on the table with any of us, they have some big issues to deal with.
I and my group are all in our 30's with 20+ years gaming experience each.

4e has been embraced wholeheartedly by us and most of us havent played D&D for over 6 years.

EDIT: I didnt vote as your poll does not have the "Play the game you enjoy and stop bitching about games other people enjoy" option.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top