Changeover Poll

[Scribble]

Haha I'm only 31!

 

[Greg K]

I think quite a few of us took the gamble (especially with the cheap initial price of places like Amazon) when 4e first came out and it increased initial sales drastically.

I think the gamble did inflate sales and the percentage of "No change: Tried 4e and went back" is somewhat reflective.

There were a lot of people on ENWorld (and other forums) claiming to buy the game unseen due to the Amazon prices. Some did it out of genuine curiosity. Some did it out of fear that the majority of people would switch to 4e which would become the only readily available choice for DND. Others liked what they saw from the info being released and claimed to buy copies for every member of their group to encourage them to switch despite having not seen the full game.

 

[Imaro]

I think the gamble did inflate sales and the percentage of "No change: Tried 4e and went back" is somewhat reflective.

There were a lot of people on ENWorld (and other forums) claiming to buy the game unseen due to the Amazon prices. Some did it out of genuine curiosity. Some did it out of fear that the majority of people would switch to 4e would become the only available choice for DND. Others liked what they saw from the info being released and claimed to buy copies for every member of their group to encourage them to switch despite having not seen the full game.

Something else I think that perpetuated the inflation of sales to those who ended up dissatisfied was the prevalent attitude on this board by many 4e fans that one couldn't discuss or voice anything bad about the game unless they had actually played it...not a one-off at a convention or KotS but the full game with all 3 corebooks. IMHO it got kind of ridiculous but also created the feeling that there was a much different experience in using the full rules for 4e as opposed to the quick start or the convention games...don't know how true that was but it probably helped sell to those who probably knew better than to invest in 4e but were convinced otherwise.

 

[S'mon]

I bought 4e unseen due to it being cheap on amazon.co.uk - I have never played it, and am currently running 3.5e and Labyrinth Lord, playing LL. However my club the London D&D Meetup Group, which is probably more representative of the hobby than ENW, is playing about 55-60% 4e to 40-45% 3.5e. New 3.5e campaigns are still frequently launched, but 4e ones are more common.

Edit: Re 3.5e, I think a lot of people share my opinion that the game doesn't work at high level. This caused many people to drop the system. However once this is recognised, it plays perfectly well with a ca 1-10 level spread, more like 1e et al.

 

[Imaro]

I bought 4e unseen due to it being cheap on amazon.co.uk - I have never played it, and am currently running 3.5e and Labyrinth Lord, playing LL. However my club the London D&D Meetup Group, which is probably more representative of the hobby than ENW, is playing about 55-60% 4e to 40-45% 3.5e. New 3.5e campaigns are still frequently launched, but 4e ones are more common.

Still anecdotal...the Chicago D&D meetup group is 100% 3.5 no changeover whatsoever in their games yet.

 

[S'mon]

Still anecdotal...the Chicago D&D meetup group is 100% 3.5 no changeover whatsoever in their games yet.

Yeah, I think while it's impossible to be precise without a full survey, all the evidence points to less of a general changeover than WotC would have wished for.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Re 3.5e, I think a lot of people share my opinion that the game doesn't work at high level. This caused many people to drop the system. However once this is recognised, it plays perfectly well with a ca 1-10 level spread, more like 1e et al.

Warning: Here comes a thread hijack.

Have you tried this S'mon? That is - have you tried a 1-10 spread? For a time during the transition I considered doing this. As a DM, I'm highly in favor of it. But some of my players voiced significant resistance. The problem, in our group, came down to a "best for the DM" and "best for the Players" and those two views were oft-times conflicting on this issue. And since we're all a bunch of appeasers, I tried to meet them halfway and they tried to meet me halfway and everyone was only halfway happy. :0

I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think there's a "perfect" system out there somewhere that combines the best of 3e with the best of 4e, but I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to figure it out.

WP

 

[Filcher]

Total change over for our groups, but we rob 3.5 for material.

 

[Filcher]

Someday, WotC (or whomever the IP holder is at that time) may produce a version of the game I'll embrace again, but I hope its before I wind up in some old-folks home. (I'm 41, so tick, tick, tick, tick...)

40 years from now, I'm hoping for an old-folks home dedicated to gaming. Think of all the free time we'll have ...

 

[Dragon Snack]

I voted "No Change: all earlier edition play", but I forgot - I am not playing D&D currently...

I just put my 3.x game on hiatus (due to my job and living situation) and apparently a few members of the group have splintered off into their own 3.5 game. So 4.0 has finally done what I feared it would - destroy my group. Well, technically the group is still together, but in losing me (they don't want to drive 30 minutes to where I will be working on game night) they also turned their back on the very pro-4.0 player...

So now I'm with a different group (which I also previously DMed a 3.x game for) that is starting up a Sundered Skies (Savage Worlds) campaign. Since this group has a couple members who dislike d20 (not just 3.x), I doubt we will be moving back to D&D any time soon.

I'll have plenty of opportunity to start up another game with a whole new group, but quite honestly, if I'm doing the recruiting, it's probably not going to be D&D. In fact, it may not even be an RPG...