Changeover Poll

[Darrin Drader]

If this is in reference to Wisdom Penalty and myself (and others), you may want to reread, because this isn't what we said. (If it's not inreference to us, of course, never mind.)

With particular reference to me, believe me, I've never had a problem with players gaining control of my game.

I'm seriously generalizing. It isn't referencing what either of you said specifically, it's just that a lot of DMs voiced throughout 3rd edition that they didn't feel like they were in control. I certainly agree than in many cases, there were probably more rules that were really needed, which were spread out over too many splats, but the DM shouldn't be afraid to take the RAW and make them his own. After all, the rules are just a framework upon which to hang a story; they are not the ends in themselves.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm seriously generalizing. It isn't referencing what either of you said specifically, it's just that a lot of DMs voiced throughout 3rd edition that they didn't feel like they were in control.

To be fair, at least two of the designers of 3E have expressed that they felt they went too far in putting rules in control of the game. This is another case where a rules-set, though never dispositive of anything, has real influence over how games get run in practice. Like Wisdom Penalty, I let the rules take control of the game, not my players. (And I'm seeing the same thing in both of my DMs, too.)

 

[Campbell]

I'm kind of in a strange situation. I'm a 4e convet playing in a 3.5 game. I love 4e to death, but the 3.5 game I'm in is moving towards a more story-oriented approach so I'm largely happy with it.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

Huh. I've never seen the word "difference" used as a synonym for "exactly the same" before. Because the 3rd Edition rulebooks, after all, included exactly the same type of verbiage regarding varying DCs. If you didn't read it, that's not 3rd Edition's fault.

And if we're dealing with anecdotal evidence, I can point to exactly the opposite: I experienced far more rules lawyering in our 4th Edition playtests. I suspect its because the dissociated mechanics encourage or force players to interact with the mechanics instead of the game world.

 

[Jack99]

To your point about splats, I think this is a seldom-talked about, but very important point. If one looks back at 1E, there are really only 5 core books for players with rules - the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide. That's it. We had 12+ years of an edition with only FIVE player-focused rulebooks. Compare that with 3.5, which had (not including compendia) 24 IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD! That's way, way too many core rules options for a DM to master. Therefore, the game is bound to break as written (especially in a homebrew) as there is no way for a DM or adventure writer to account for everything. 2E started to break when kits took off, and 4E shows no signs of curtailing the problem as there will be 5 Core Player Rule Books within 1 year (Player's Handbook, Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Arcane Power, and Player's Handbook 2).

I'm all for options, not restrictions, but the drive to sell player-oriented books (in both 3E and 4E) is, IMO, killing this game. It's too much. I wish D&D were an evergreen, one-shot type base product, that says "here are the rules for players in this one book (or maybe a small few spread out over time - such as 1/year - but not 24!)" and the rest is using those rules (adventures, campaign setting, player and DM aides).

This is probably the smartest thing I have read on these boards for a while.

I'm not defending it vigorously. I'm just pointing out that you find the results of the poll upsetting and I think that is why you're saying it's invalid. It's a poll that suggests (not proves) that 4E is something less than the all-conquering god-king of gaming, and so the "4E Avengers" are here to beat up on it and start slapfights.

Just in case you do not know it, a lot of people feel 4E Avengers is a pretty insulting term. But perhaps it was meant as an insult?

Also, your logic is deeply flawed. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I doubt you will find many on these boards, 4e fan or not, that will not acknowledge that the D&D community is divided and that 4e has not succeeded in catching the fancy of anywhere near the majority of the hardcore 3.x fans.

The things we do not agree on is how big is this hardcore 3.x fan base. Is ENworld a good representation of the D&D community? And last but not least, can polls like these really be extrapolated to some useful information, no matter what the poll shows. Or are we (the regulars of the boards, those who vote) simply too far from the average gamer.

Let's face it, we have 70k members and I presume quite a lot of hits per day, and yet, it's the same 500-1k people who vote and post most of the time.

/shrug

I think that in the end, we should all just be happy to have a game we love (no matter the edition), assuming that we can get to play it, of course.

Happy New Year

 

[Derren]

Let's face it, we have 70k members and I presume quite a lot of hits per day, and yet, it's the same 500-1k people who vote and post most of the time.

1k samples for a 70k group is actually quite much and enough for a quite accurate statistic.

And I agree with Korgoth.
If this poll would be more positive for 4E, then a lot less people would argue that the poll not representative.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Just in case you do not know it, a lot of people feel 4E Avengers is a pretty insulting term. But perhaps it was meant as an insult?

For the record, a lot of people find the 4E Avengers to be a pretty insulting group of posters. Although, I agreed that it is a term that has no place at ENWorld.

 

[JeffB]

This "4E Avenger" term cracks me up, because 7-8 years ago all the new 3E fans did the exact same damn thing here and elsewhere on the net- annoying the hell out of the 2E fans/holdouts, telling them the new game was a bazillion times better, and older editions suck, and the older editions drove us away from D&D, blah blah.

Now they are the one's crying about the loss of "their game"-What goes around comes around I reckon.

 

[Psion]

I'm kind of in a strange situation. I'm a 4e convet playing in a 3.5 game. I love 4e to death, but the 3.5 game I'm in is moving towards a more story-oriented approach so I'm largely happy with it.

You aren't talking about my PbP are you?

Because there's a good chance it could get downright combative over the run.

But being who I am (see my Robin Laws style breakdown in sig), there's always going to be a story behind it.

 

[Maggan]

I experienced far more rules lawyering in our 4th Edition playtests. I suspect its because the dissociated mechanics encourage or force players to interact with the mechanics instead of the game world.

When my group sit down to test a game, we focus very much on mechanics, instead of the game world. After our intitial testing of the system, if we decide to play the game further, we shift the focus more to interaction with the game world.

So maybe what you experienced might be at least in part a result of the circumstances under which you were playing, i.e. a playtest, and not a direct result of how the rules in D&D4e are constructed?

/M