4e Change of mind

[radferth]

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.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

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.

 

[slwoyach]

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.

 

[slwoyach]

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.

 

[ppaladin123]

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.

 

[Dragonblade]

Given what objective evidence we have of 4th Edition's early success and following decline less than a year in

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.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

 

[darjr]

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.

 

[Dannager]

~ we don't do "fixed it" posts here: PS~
Fixed.