Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Minigiant]

One of the things I don't think D&D game designer didn't and don't account for is how many groups a gamer plays with.

If you play with the same group for years and rarely hit the internet (or rarely let it affect you), it is harder to run into those edition complaints that "some gamers never experience".

But grouphoppers run into every "edition issue". I might guess there is a direct correlation between grouphopping and calls for fixes.

Has a question like "How many different groups have you been in during the past 5 years?"been asked in a survey?

 

[billd91]

One of the things I don't think D&D game designer didn't and don't account for is how many groups a gamer plays with.

If you play with the same group for years and rarely hit the internet (or rarely let it affect you), it is harder to run into those edition complaints that "some gamers never experience".

But grouphoppers run into every "edition issue". I might guess there is a direct correlation between grouphopping and calls for fixes.

Has a question like "How many different groups have you been in during the past 5 years?"been asked in a survey?

I think that would be an interesting question to investigate. I suspect stable groups have developed relatively stable play styles and individuals within them have adjusted their own personal impulses to work with the group's (otherwise, they'd probably be removed as disruptive). Shorter term groups or people who grouphop a lot are less likely to benefit from that and thus you tend to see clashing.

It's my general belief that a lot of problems people saw with 3e stem more from differences in play styles and approaches to the game than the actual game itself. If everyone power games, it's not a problem. But if some do and some don't - conflicts arise. If everyone's comfortable with rotating spotlights, it's not a problem. But if some prefer rotation but others prefer to share the spotlight - conflicts arise. If everyone's comfortable with spending a bit of time out of the action because their PC is dead, it's not a problem. But if some players get impatient about it while others don't - conflicts arise.

In a stable group, mindful of everyone's fun over a long term, the wizard is less likely to make a wand of knock because he knows another player has invested a lot of ranks in his rogue's open locks skill. Or if he does, he and the rogue cooperated and the wizard has given the rogue the wand, which the rogue uses with his well-developed use magic device skill. There may even be a good chance they do this every campaign because one just likes to play wizards, the other just likes to play rogues.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Are we? I thought we were discussing the differences between editions. Such a conversation is impossible if we ignore what the books say, because everyone played the game differently.

[META]
I suspected that you believed so, and that others may also believe so. And I can't guarantee what every individual person here is talking off, but I wanted to use that opportunity to remind people that there are different views that can color this discussion.

The "rules as on paper" discussion is in a way largely academic an does not necessarily help figuring out how a game system was received and felt by players. Because the latter all depend on more subjective experienced - but not all subjective experiences are without common elements, and one common element may have been that many AD&D players ignored demi-human level limits, for example. This will in turn shape how 3E was recieved when it removed these elements.

As often with game systems, it matters more how they are played at the game table then the designers originally envisioned them.

Also, common house rules also may suggest that the way a game was written easily lend itself to making that house rule, and a game turning that house rule into a rule is a more natural evolution then a game that didn't do such things. Again - very few house-ruled their fighters to get encounter and daily abilities.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the things I don't think D&D game designer didn't and don't account for is how many groups a gamer plays with.

If you play with the same group for years and rarely hit the internet (or rarely let it affect you), it is harder to run into those edition complaints that "some gamers never experience".

But grouphoppers run into every "edition issue". I might guess there is a direct correlation between grouphopping and calls for fixes.

Has a question like "How many different groups have you been in during the past 5 years?"been asked in a survey?

I'd be an outlier in such a survey. I play with the same group nigh exclusively, and have for years now. This wasn't always true, but is now. Thing is, our group is large, has at least 2 or 3 different variations in playstyle preferences, but I'm the only one who frequents gaming boards or thinks about this stuff. So I don't see the complaints as much as I see, well, "discontent." The discontent is directly related to a lot of the complaints.

Moreover, keeping everyone reasonably happy is possible under a lot of systems and circumstances, but the work on me varies tremendously across those same systems and circumstances. So satisfying playstyles, not a problem. Keeping me having fun, not a problem. The intersection of satisfying those playstyles and me having fun? A much narrower window.

I never had, for example, someone directly complain in our group that the 3E fighters weren't pulling their weight, or weren't effective in the face of the casters, or that they didn't have enough to do. What I did see, over and over, was floundering around with rogue/fighter multiclasses and similar mechanics combined with obvious discontent at the scope and abilities of the character. Upon investigation by me, I was able to dig out discontent based on some of the problems that have been discussed online. Casual gamers can be frustated by problem that they don't always directly express, the same way casual motorists that don't know the difference between being out of gas versus having a broken alternator might be hollaring about being late for work.

 

[Fifth Element]

Because the latter all depend on more subjective experienced - but not all subjective experiences are without common elements, and one common element may have been that many AD&D players ignored demi-human level limits, for example. This will in turn shape how 3E was recieved when it removed these elements.

I think the key phrase here is the "may have been." The conversation can only go round in circles if we have to not only consider how it was played at your own table, but also assume things about how it was played at other tables. The whole thing becomes completely baseless because it's built on assumptions that cannot be verified, meaning you can speak to your own experience and nothing else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think one problem with that may have been to alot of gamers the problems with 3E were purely theoretical

Sure, I've heard many a valid issue dismissed as 'theorycrafting,' precisely /because/ it was a valid, reasoned issue based on the game itself, which everyone can look at and verify.

OTOH, 'experience' is just a survey with a sample size of 1 - and not verifiable, to boot.

I'm not discounting that these things weren't problems for people. But rather that the number of people who actually encountered them were smaller than the internet would lead the designers to assume.

Almost certainly. Small, vocal minorities make a big difference in matters of perception.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd be an outlier in such a survey. I play with the same group nigh exclusively, and have for years now. This wasn't always true, but is now. Thing is, our group is large, has at least 2 or 3 different variations in playstyle preferences, but I'm the only one who frequents gaming boards or thinks about this stuff.

Sounds very similar to my own situation:

- large amorphous group with a core that's been together for about 30 years and others coming and going (or staying) along the way
- there's an internal division between 1e-ers and 3e-ers but nothing all that serious
- playstyle differences tend to morph themselves into a common ground of "do whatever's entertaining"
- there's a few of us who read these boards but I'm pretty much the only one these days who jumps in with both feet

But I'm not the only one in our crew who thinks about this stuff. I'd say we have about 8 in our current lot who think about (and act on, by designing their own tweaks or systems) this stuff on a regular basis; of which I am but one.

Lanefan

 

[Harlekin]

I think one problem with that may have been to alot of gamers the problems with 3E were purely theoretical (or unknown if you didn't visit gaming boards). I know for my game when people complain about X, Y, Z in 3E/PF I think to myself "really? I've never run into that".

I'm not discounting that these things weren't problems for people. But rather that the number of people who actually encountered them were smaller than the internet would lead the designers to assume.

This means that when you market a game in a way that "offends" people who were playing the previous version, those people who don't know what "problems" the system has are more likely to be turned off. (since one hopes that the penetration of your marketing campaign is greater than the number of people who read things on forums).

My perception is exactly the opposite: Many games had this problem, but didn't realize it. After all, within a gaming group a GM can do a lot of gyrations to make up for any problem in the gaming system. That such gyrations then may lead to less fun games and faster DM burnout is not easy to recognize.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]
I think that is the blessing and curse of the system. D&D can be and has been played so many different ways. If everyone is not on the same page or the system doesn't support a previous style or one game brings something new; it can mean disaster.

Back when I played 3E, I hopped in as an alt healer for a group. They player with a knock wand wizard because in their game, rogues are supported to do the talking and thus have good Cha and social skills maxxed. No dreamy or trapfinding required. The rogue talks and only the rogue talks. It was weird and crazy to me. I couldnt stay. That style would not fit in MANY groups. The DM disliked 4E because he adore the "one guy at a time shines" thing, wants cheap wand magic spam, and dislike rituals. That is D&D to him.


[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]

That is a thought. I couldnt explain one of the sources for my discontent with an aspect of 3E for a while. It wasn't until I hopped into a PbP game with randoms did I realize my problem with that edition's arcanists.

 

[BobROE]

My perception is exactly the opposite: Many games had this problem, but didn't realize it. After all, within a gaming group a GM can do a lot of gyrations to make up for any problem in the gaming system. That such gyrations then may lead to less fun games and faster DM burnout is not easy to recognize.

Yes, but if people didn't realize they were having the problems, are they going to vocalize those things on forums, in letters, etc?

Sure, I've heard many a valid issue dismissed as 'theorycrafting,' precisely /because/ it was a valid, reasoned issue based on the game itself, which everyone can look at and verify.

Very true, but my being able to look at someones reasoning why the fighter is crap or that the wizard can replace the rogue and agree "Yes, I can see that" is very different from it actually happening in my game and it being a problem. And if it's not happening in my game I'm probably not going to raise a stink about getting it "fixed".