Changeover Poll

[BryonD]

Personally, I believe it is a forward step, but I am not going to state this as something factual and use a blanket "general consensus" statement to make me feel better about it.

It is interesting, because many of 4E fans have praised that it moves BACK to the play feel of prior editions.

I agree with that assessment, but to me it is a flaw. 1E was great in its day, but it was really all there was. I'm sure there were others, but not that many and certainly not to me as a young kid. I left 2E because it was "just as good" as 1E, but really nothing more. I didn't stop enjoying it until I found other games that had taken the RPG concept and pushed it into larger areas. I didn't return to 3E because it had the name D&D on it. I returned because, in my assessment, it learned from a lot of those other games and continued to expand the degree of mechanically based virtual reality that could be formed. 4E has reversed that course and has been praised for doing it.

 

[catsclaw227]

I derived from reading Darrin's post that he was referring to evolutionary progression and regression when he described 4e as a move backwards instead of forward.

In this case progression assumes improvement, whether it is simplification via elegance or advancement via complexity or number of options.

Regression assumes a deterioration or decline.

I see the game as progressing.

It is interesting, because many of 4E fans have praised that it moves BACK to the play feel of prior editions.

By the definitions stated above, this could be considered moving forward. To many, taking on characteristics or traits of prior editions isn't moving backwards, it is simply applying lessons learned and allowing history to improve -- or move forward as it were -- the game.

 

[Sammael]

In my view, 4E is not an evolution of 3.x (or D&D as a whole). In that sense, it cannot be referred to as "progression." Rather, it is a completely different game that only bears the D&D moniker for trademark purposes, and, as such, is not "evolutionary."

3E kept most of the concepts that existed in AD&D and (generally) updated them to be in line with the trends in RPG development which were current at the time. If you opened an AD&D book and looked up a concept, chances are it had a counterpart in 3E (kits became prestige classes, nonweapon proficiencies became skills, Skills & Powers stuff became feats, saves were streamlined, etc).

4E apparently started in much the same way, but somewhere along the line, the developers apparently said "to hell with it, this is just too hard to fix," developed a new game, and then stuck a few D&D-isms on it to lure people to convert. This is not evolution. The developers did not "fix" 3.x, they developed a whole new game; that game has a lot of problems on its own, some of which are the same as the problems that existed in 3.x (and it is undeniable that 3.x had its own slew of problems). This is not to say that 4E is not a good game, it's simply a different one, and to me (and a lot of other people), it's sufficiently different that we cannot consider it as the next step in the evolution of D&D.

I'll stand by my opinion that if 4E were developed by a 3rd party and not by the largest player in the market, it would have been a niche game - with a level of acceptance akin to that of Blue Rose or True 20 at best.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

817 votes.

Changeover: 32%
No Changeover: 58%
Partial Changeover: 10%

Those choosing Option 6: 30%

These results have held steady for the last 200 votes cast, perhaps longer.

-

I wish to consider an alternative way of looking at this poll, and that is adding Option 5 to the No Changeover Category.
This is justified by the fact that Option 2 is in the Changeover Category.
Option 2 says: Mostly 4E. Option 5 says mostly Prior Editions. So, why not add Option 5 to the No Changeover category?

Or ...

Remove Option 2 from the Changeover Category.

Here are the results IF Option 5 is added to the No Changeover Category AND Option 2 is retained for the Changeover Category:

Changeover: 32%
No Changeover: 62%

Here are the results IF Option 5 is *not* added to the No Changeover Category AND Option 2 is *not* retained for the Changeover Category:

Changeover: 25%
No Changeover: 58%

Note that a fair number of people have (as you can see) voted for Option 2, and I included in in Changeover.
A few people (4%) voted for Option 5, and I did *not* include it in No Changeover.

This is my mistake.
I can't fix that mistake now, or I create a discontinuity with the First Changeover Poll.
I merely wanted to put all this up, for comparison, and - if you wish - analysis.

Any way you cut it, though ... the No Changeovers definitely have this poll.
I don't know if it's because ENWorld favors earlier editions, or earlier edition people vote more enthusiastically, or if 4E is in trouble, or if the 4E enthusiasts simply didn't bother to vote, or if people have stuffed the ballot box, or whatever ... but I would have to say that in this poll the No Changeovers Have It.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I still need at least another 150 votes for this poll, to put it on a parity with the first Changeover Poll.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I still need at least another 150 votes for this poll, to put it on a parity with the first Changeover Poll.

You do know that if you get your 150 more votes, and there's a sudden major shift in the percentages, it will actually be indicative of something like ballot-box stuffing?

So if you hit 1000 votes and things stay pretty much the same, the 850 votes you have now works fine. And if you hit 1000 votes and the percentages change significantly, the results will be suspect.

At this point, your 850 votes are, practically speaking, at least as meaningful as 1000 votes would be.

 

[BryonD]

By the definitions stated above, this could be considered moving forward. To many, taking on characteristics or traits of prior editions isn't moving backwards, it is simply applying lessons learned and allowing history to improve -- or move forward as it were -- the game.

Yes, moving backwards is moving forward.
Also up is down, left is right and most importantly of all, all communication breakdowns have been eliminated.

 

[FireLance]

Everything you know is wrong!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGC09B810Yk]YouTube - Everything You Know Is Wrong[/ame]

 

[Hussar]

Yes, moving backwards is moving forward.
Also up is down, left is right and most importantly of all, all communication breakdowns have been eliminated.

Only when one insists on playing silly pedantic games.

A product can hearken back to earlier styles/themes and still be a progression.

A PT Cruiser, for example, looks backwards towards old roadsters. Yet, it is in all ways a modern car - it has all the modern goodies and toys and the engine certainly is not even remotely close to something you'd find under the hood 50 years ago. Yet, it does borrow inspiration heavily from 50 year old cars.

So, yes, you can certainly draw on what came before for inspiration while moving forward with new concepts.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

A product can hearken back to earlier styles/themes and still be a progression.

Absofrigginlutely.

Heck, the fact 4e moved closer to 1e/OD&D/BECM is a huge positive as far as I'm concerned.

I realize others may not agree, but - really - who cares?

Play what you like. Don't crap on what other people play. Drink your milk.

WP