D&D General Edition Experience - Updated Survey Results, Jan 2021 (All Surveys)

[Marc_C]

I am still surprised that 2nd edition got that much popular. It was not so in my area but 3E really got the spot light. I think it is linked to the fact that 2E was so close to first that many did not bother. Many just bought a few adventures or settings. Everything else was "optional" as the old guard were telling us. Strange, I am now among the old guard...

2e lasted 11 years (1989-2000). The final three under WoTC. That helps. It is my favourite TSR edition. With which I created one of my best and longest running campaign.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Hey, thanks for doing this @CleverNickName . I love this data.

Question about this:

The edition that had the most caustic conversation was 4E D&D, at 24.7% (remember, this is out of all comments in all surveys!). That means that almost one in every 4 comments in all surveys was from someone trying to win an argument.

I'm a bit confused. 24.7% is of the 4e comments, right? Not of all seven of the surveys combined? If I parse your raw numbers correctly, comments with strong feelings in the 4e thread were about 79-80 comments? So they represent about 6.7% of all responses in all threads?

 

[Charlaquin]

Nevermind.

 

[Weiley31]

I feel like RC D&D is the "forgotten edition", and I'd separate it from BECMI (I am aware that it is very closely related, kinda a compilation, but bear with me).

I think it's the "forgotten edition" for a few reasons:

1) It came out in 1991. So not that long after 2E. And at that time, I think most (definitely not all) people who played BECMI had either switched to 1E or 2E, were playing one of the massive array of new RPGs that had exploded out in the late '80s and '90-'91 (including Vampire, CP2020, Shadowrun, and so on) or had stopped playing (because they were at college, started work, or the like).

2) People who learned of it, tended to dismiss it. I saw this a lot on the early internet. "Oh that's just D&D, not AD&D, not interested!". At the time, being a teenager, I sorta believed this, but also having read RC D&D, I was sorta-super-impressed by it. Most people hadn't even read it, though, it seemed. More grog-y players tend to role their eyes at it for similar reasons.

3) It wasn't presented by TSR as an introduction to D&D. It didn't really have a clear purpose. I mean, in a sense it's classic TSR "competing with their own products" stuff. If you were an AD&D player, why would you buy it? If you were new to D&D/RPGs, there were other products for that, and it wasn't really linked to them.

As a result of all this, I think you have this small number of RC D&D evangelists, who have read it, and were really impressed by it, because, frankly it was accidentally way ahead of it's time design-wise, and a large number of people who just have never heard of it, or think of it simply as a compilation book for BECMI that's not really it's own thing (even though I would argue it was). And younger players tend to be aware that there's 1E-5E, and that there was "red box" D&D and sometimes that there was OD&D, but they are rarely aware of RC D&D at all, let alone of how well put-together it was.

I actually had no idea that Rules Cyclopedia came out after 2E. Huh.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm sure 4E isn't that bad as long as you cut down the 2 Hour long fights that can occur in it.(And this is coming from somebody who never played 4E and his first play experience with DND was 5E of 2019/2020.)

 

[CleverNickName]

Hey, thanks for doing this @CleverNickName . I love this data.

Question about this:

I'm a bit confused. 24.7% is of the 4e comments, right? Not of all seven of the surveys combined? If I parse your raw numbers correctly, comments with strong feelings in the 4e thread were about 79-80 comments? So they represent about 6.7% of all responses in all threads?

Woops, correct you are. I removed the error. It was for just the 4E comments; I got my tables crossed. Thanks for the sharp (nine) eyes!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Woops, correct you are. I removed the error. It was for just the 4E comments; I got my tables crossed. Thanks for the sharp (nine) eyes!

So, quick question.

I just ran the percentage numbers (first table, by edition).

OD&D adds up to 92.4%.
Basic is 102.7.
1e is 124.6.


Is there something I'm missing? I can understand the numbers not quite adding up (like Basic, due to rounding error) or the numbers being too high (like 1e) if you double-coded some things, but both too high and too low?

 

[Sacrosanct]

As is the defensiveness. Traffic moves in two directions on that road.

Yep. for every person that calls 4e an MMO, there's a person who screams "edition war! You're a hater!" at any sort of comment about 4e that isn't praise.

It's a weird edition for sure. A lot of people hate it, and a lot of people seem to act like it's the only edition you can't criticize or say what you didn't like about it

*Edit and before the inevitable "But haters against 4e are the worst!" No. No they aren't. Every edition has people who are vehemently against it. We always have a person or two who calls AD&D a chaotic mess played by neckbeards, or 3e a disaster of imbalance only enjoyed by min maxers", or that "4e is too gameboardy to be real D&D", etc. I said it back in 2012 when 5e was announced, "You're not being treated any worse than any other fan, you're only just now experiencing what every other fan has gone through when their favorite edition was replaced." When/if the next edition comes out, 5e fans will probably make the same complaints. Such is the way of life.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yep. (remainder omitted)

Given that the 4e discussion thread was already shut down, I'm not sure that we want to get the survey result thread shut down for the same reason.

 

[CleverNickName]

Given that the 4e discussion thread was already shut down, I'm not sure that we want to get the survey result thread shut down for the same reason.

That's the way it goes, it seems. Someone makes a broad generalization about the game, which somehow upsets someone enough to make broad generalizations about the person making the broad generalization, and down the toilet we all go. I don't know why it happens so much more often with 4th Edition than any of the other editions, or how it got to be so extremely polarizing. But here we are.

"I think that 4th Edition was..."
"OH YEAH? Well the only people who think that are..."

I bet if we could stick to the first line of thought and avoid the second, we could have some really cool discussions.