3E & 4E Love and Hate Polls - What does it mean?

[haakon1]

My main argument was that actual edition hate, from my observation, seems to be centered on 3E players who feel that WotC slighted or abandoned them.

As a 3e lover/4e hater, I actually tend to agree with you. But it might just be that I've self-selectively noticed more people who say things that agree with me and ignored the arguments from the other side, even when they were nuttily annoying too.

BTW, I don't hate the 4e players, and I don't hate the 4e designers or WOTC. I just wish they'd "let me" keep playing my game.

I realize they DO let me, but the slighted and abandoned and bullied by WOTC feelings are real, at least for me.

If the pre-4e WOTC and TSR material were available on paid PDF and the GSL allowed the same companies to produce 3e materials, particular dual stat'd adventures, most of my hate would disappear, I think.

And if they'd give Paizo the rights to Greyhawk, I'd bow down in praise!

 

[haakon1]

Duuuuuude, old Coke tastes like an unholy mixture of battery acid and soap.

Totally. The battery acid tang of real Coke is one of the features I love best about it. New Coke was too darn smooth and Pepsi-like.

Nowadays, I'm too old and fat for the Real Thing, but I like Coke Zero because it still has that Cokiness about it -- Coke Zero is the 3e of Coke, the old thing rebottled for aging consumers.

 

[haakon1]

What I'm trying to say is put the actual edition war aside, and the squabbles of fans and who did what to who. Forget about that a moment and consider the question of which side logically would feel like they have more to lose by the introduction of a new edition. People who don't like the new edition, and who realize that their preferred edition will lose a great amount of future support, that their community will become fractured and they will lose potential players to the new edition, and feel like a game that they prized has been somehow insulted or injured. They are more naturally going to feel bitter towards the new edition and likely going to see it for even worse than it really is.

On the other hand, those who prefer the new edition don't have a reason to be threatened by the introduction of a new version. They might get overzealous and try to convert the players of the old version (because they want to play their version too), and they might get defensive from the attacks of those who hate their version, but there's not really an emotional investment that is being challenged by the introduction of a new version that would cause them to be very likely to have extreme hatred for the old version.

This all makes sense, but there's two factors you haven't considered:

-- Contrast WOTC's 3e to 4e conversion policies to the Windows Vista v. Windows 7 change. There's no Windows edition war because:
1) Windows 7 is clearly better. I love it and I never heard of anybody who doesn't.
2) Windows 7 is fully backwards compatible. I'm not aware of any Vista or XP programs it won't run. Which means transition is painless AND keeping the old one is also pain-free.
3) The ecosystem still supports both. 3rd parties are both allowed and encouraged to applications that run on the old and the new.

-- People did get pretty darn defensive with the attacks on 4e. If 4e lovers were all like you "I like it, your mileage may vary, and that's fine", I think there'd be less vitriol.

I do think many of us are set in our ways because of the scars from the Edition Wars, but I think nowadays we mostly get along, and it is a more rational discussion. I also think talking about it is "therapy" and may help us all.

But I can see from Umbran's POV, it's really annoying and tedious to have us keep going at it.

 

[N0Man]

At the time, I remember the main criticism at the time was that New Coke tasted like Pepsi -- sweeter, without the tanginess of the Real Thing. Very similar to criticisms of 4e being like WOW -- as in the accusation is that the brand was changed to be more "modern", but we the die-hards like the Real Thing and the not pale imitation of the New Generation.

...

I do think, however, that it was a WIDESPREAD revulsion at the change, it was the zeitgeist, not a minority opinion, which is why Coke changed back and why it's widely viewed as the most visible marketing blunder in recent history.

I think your memoery of this event might be skewed a bit. Here are excerts from Wikipedia on the subject (and I didn't even edit them first!).

While it is widely believed today that the new drink failed almost instantly, this was not the case. The company, as it had planned, introduced the new formula with big marketing pushes in New York (workers renovating the Statue of Liberty were symbolically the first Americans given cans to take home[18]) and Washington, D.C. (where thousands of free cans were given away in Lafayette Park). Sales figures from those cities, and other regions where it had been introduced, showed a reaction that went as the market research had predicted. In fact, Coke's sales were up 8% over the same period the year before.

Most Coke drinkers resumed buying the new drink at much the same level as they had the old one. Surveys indicated, in fact, that a majority liked the new flavoring.[20] Three-quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again.
...

Despite New Coke's acceptance with a large number of Coca-Cola drinkers, a vocal minority of them resented the change in formula and were not shy about making that known...

Still, despite ongoing resistance in the South, New Coke continued to do well in the rest of the country,..

Goizueta publicly voiced a complaint many company executives had been making in private as they shared letters the company had received thanking them for the change in formula, that bashing it had become "chic" and that, as had happened in the focus groups, peer pressure was keeping those who liked it from speaking up in its favor as vociferously as its critics were against it.

Coca-Cola's director of corporate communications, Carlton Curtis, realized over time that they were more upset about the withdrawal of the old formula than the taste of the new one.

In the end, the whole fiasco actually benefited them quite greatly. The switch back was a huge success.

 

[BryonD]

The moral of this story:

In the end, the whole fiasco actually benefited them quite greatly. The switch back was a huge success.

 

[Hairfoot]

-- People did get pretty darn defensive with the attacks on 4e. If 4e lovers were all like you "I like it, your mileage may vary, and that's fine", I think there'd be less vitriol.

That's just it.

I think a lot of experienced D&Ders dismissed 4E for what it was, but remember that many of us gave it a good go first. I ran a short campaign, then played in another, and I know from that experience that 4E simply cannot provide the type of game I enjoy.

The reasons for that are numerous, but mostly come down to the default superhero level of the PCs, the unprecedented focus on combat, and the rigid nature of the system which, it's true, makes arguments at the game table less common, but kyboshes flexibility and mystery in big way. My mileage varies!

So, when Hasbro markets 4E as a fine-tuned version of previous editions, my BS-detector goes off the dial, because it's demonstrably not a member of the same family. To compound that, players who absolutely dig 4E are fond of proclaiming that it's simply a better game than its predecessors - without realising that it seems that way to them because it's actually a different game altogether.

If you want to make people angry, there's no better way than telling them, "my X is a better version of your Y, and I dismiss any argument to the contrary".

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, looking at WOTC fantasy games, 4E is a development off 3E, there are too many similarities to jsut ignore, but ....

I would have to agree it is a new game, in most respects. It plays differently, with different assumptions about the world, and especially cosmology and the player's roles in it.

Calling it superheroey has the same basis as calling 3E superheroey, as I certainly would, or maybe godlike is a better adjective for 3E, especially the casters. At least in 4E the heroes are not godlike.

Also please keep in mind the fact that many or perhaps most of those who like 4E better played 3E for years, sometimes for many years, and previous editions to boot. Saying you played in one campaign and ran antoehr is not the same as playing 3.x for 8 years as many people who switched to 4E did.

Especially on these boards.

 

[Hairfoot]

Calling it superheroey has the same basis as calling 3E superheroey, as I certainly would, or maybe godlike is a better adjective for 3E, especially the casters. At least in 4E the heroes are not godlike.

3E characters are definitely powered up a notch compared to previous editions, but IME it's possible to change the setting around them so that their power, relatively, is as low or high as the game group wants it.

The rigidity of 4E doesn't permit that option. The PCs are vastly superior to the norm whether you like it or not. For some people that's fun as all get-out. For me it's a cheesy ego-trip.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder game, and while the system pushes things toward super-ness, it's possible to keep it to a mortal level.

Also please keep in mind the fact that many or perhaps most of those who like 4E better played 3E for years, sometimes for many years, and previous editions to boot. Saying you played in one campaign and ran antoehr is not the same as playing 3.x for 8 years as many people who switched to 4E did.

Especially on these boards.

Indeed. I started with BECMI, played through 1E & 2E, took a break to wargame for a few years, and came back with the release of 3E, so I'm not criticising 4E from nowhere.

I'd be very interested to know how many players of older editions went on to 4E. I'd run a poll, but it would probably tell us that 99% of 4E players started with OD&D.

My observation, however, is that most of the 4E fans here joined the site since 3E was released, with many, perhaps half, joining in the last 2. That suggests to me that a) many 4E players started gaming with 3E, and the progression to 4E is more logical for them because they have nothing to compare it to, and b) 4E is Dungeons & Dragons designed for people who don't like Dungeons & Dragons. Vancian casting and loose rules aren't for everyone, so I think 4E appeals to people who enjoy highly systematic games and few abstractions, which, not co-incidentally, are features of M:tG.

 

[Barastrondo]

The moral of this story:

One wonders if things would have turned out differently if buying Coke of your particular brand meant that you had a limitless ability to drink your favorite Coke until you died, even if it wasn't available at the store any more.

I dunno. I really, really don't envy Wizards: a continuous treadmill of supplements is kind of necessary to keep distributors and bookstores buying your stuff (which is a messed-up state of affairs), but I'm not sure that it does the game as played all that much good. Past a certain point, a high supplement volume has a tendency to shed buyers as they become overwhelmed, even as it's keeping the biggest fans interested.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly understand the appeal of RPGs as serial entertainment in the form of "buying and reading new material for them." But that's virtually a separate sub-hobby from "playing them." And to some extent, I think there are few games that excel at both; a game designed to be an excellent ongoing read might not be a very good play experience (see metaplot), and a game designed to be an excellent play experience may not be a sexy read (which 4e has had issued with), or may just be best off with a single book.

 

[Barastrondo]

My observation, however, is that most of the 4E fans here joined the site since 3E was released, with many, perhaps half, joining in the last 2. That suggests to me that a) many 4E players started gaming with 3E, and the progression to 4E is more logical for them because they have nothing to compare it to, and b) 4E is Dungeons & Dragons designed for people who don't like Dungeons & Dragons. Vancian casting and loose rules aren't for everyone, so I think 4E appeals to people who enjoy highly systematic games and few abstractions, which, not co-incidentally, are features of M:tG.

That strikes me as kind of a reach. 4e is awfully popular over at RPG.net, for instance, a place that also has had strong communities for Exalted, Wu Shu and Dogs in the Vineyard. There you see people who came into the hobby on things like White Wolf games or Shadowrun — who didn't start with D&D at all.

Of course, all fair disclosure, I may be biased because my anecdotal evidence is so different. I was one of those kids who started with D&D in the '80s, Erol Otus cover and all, started running serious campaigns (rather than goofy beer-and-pretzels stuff) when 2e came out, and played from beginning to end of 3e. I have a gaming group full of people who have had experience with plenty of editions and who simply prefer 4e. It doesn't surprise me, though — 4e was designed by people who'd also been playing that long.

We like Dungeons and Dragons. 4e feels like it was designed for us. I have to say I reject your "4e was designed for people who don't like Dungeons and Dragons" principle.