Forked Thread: Changeover poll

[Psion]

I was just going to stick to my house rules until I got the 3e MM. I liked the new monster format enough as it fit my gaming philosophy better than 1e/2e did. This prompted me to start a 3e game in parallel with my 2e game. After a month I was hooked, and switched my 2e game.

I don't see this experience repeating in 4e. Unlike 3e, 4e does not support continuity of the metasetting with the previous editions, and there is nothing I see about 4e that fits my gaming philosophy better in any compelling away. In fact, bits like everything's a square fits it quite a bit worse.

 

[Hussar]

I was just going to stick to my house rules until I got the 3e MM. I liked the new monster format enough as it fit my gaming philosophy better than 1e/2e did. This prompted me to start a 3e game in parallel with my 2e game. After a month I was hooked, and switched my 2e game.

I don't see this experience repeating in 4e. Unlike 3e, 4e does not support continuity of the metasetting with the previous editions, and there is nothing I see about 4e that fits my gaming philosophy better in any compelling away. In fact, bits like everything's a square fits it quite a bit worse.

/edit for a different tack

Question - looking at the modules published by Dungeon, do you think that you could not play these in a 3e campaign? Or, conversely, what 3e modules could you not convert to 4e?

Granted 1:1 conversion may not be possible since the monster stats have changed, but, dyou you think its impossible to thematically convert these modules?

 

[Psion]

Incorrect. 2e was basically dead when 3e was announced. 3.5e was still alive when 4e was announced.

This very much matches my perception, and the situation locally and on fora I visited.

2e was hated, despised. Getting new players was like pulling teeth, a condition that immediately improved with the release of 3e.

It was during the tenure of 2e that 2e sales dipped briefly below that of another RPG, something that hasn't happened before or since.

This is in stark contrast to now. The very same local list that had weekly rants about 2e was still putting up posts for 3e games when 4e was announced... and well after. And my group never expressed any interest in switching.

So it's all anecdotal, blah-de-blah, but I think the audience for 3.5 is much healthier than it was in the waning days of 2e.

 

[Psion]

You're assuming that people have these multi-year campaign settings though.

Am I? I wasn't "assuming" anything. I was recounting my experience and my likelihood of ever adopting 4e. I wasn't trying to make any claims about what other people were doing.

That said, I don't currently have a game going (I'm actually playing). What's at issue here is that the D&D metasetting is what interests me about the game, whether or not I start a new game there. The metasetting changes in 4e are so radical, that it's a whole new game to me, like Arcana Evolved or Exalted, and has to interest me anew.

New mechanics while still maintaining a stronger continuity would have been something that had a much better chance of selling to me.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD - It would be pretty damn difficult to have this poll about 4e wouldn't it? It's only been out for less than a month.

"Excuse me everyone, could you consult your crystal balls and let me know if you switch in the future?"

Sheesh.

You're the one that made the comparison and linked it to the other thread.

And, yes, I do claim that 40% of the community WAS STAYING with 2e within a month of release.

OK. You're wrong.

This has NOTHING to do with planning. This is about what really happened.

Come on, there may be a few people wrapping up campaigns before they switch, but the constant theme is that there are lots of people who have absolutely no intention of EVER changing to 4e. They may drop 3E for a hundred other things, including dropping out of gaming altogether, but 4e isn't on the list.

There's still far too few votes to make any sort of conclusion, but, I'm surprised that most so far did change upon release. Just goes to show how valuable anecdotal evidence is.

Depends on how much anecdotal evidence one has. This does a real good job of matching exactly what I saw.

 

[Hussar]

This very much matches my perception, and the situation locally and on fora I visited.

2e was hated, despised. Getting new players was like pulling teeth, a condition that immediately improved with the release of 4e.

It was during the tenure of 2e that 2e sales dipped briefly below that of another RPG, something that hasn't happened before or since.

This is in stark contrast to now. The very same local list that had weekly rants about 2e was still putting up posts for 3e games when 4e was announced... and well after. And my group never expressed any interest in switching.

So it's all anecdotal, blah-de-blah, but I think the audience for 3.5 is much healthier than it was in the waning days of 2e.

Now, I'll certainly agree that 3.5 is healthier than 2e was at the end.

But hated? Really? Where I lived, you couldn't find a D&D game that wasn't 2e. If you were willing to DM, you had a game instantly. I was turning players away.

Heh, anecdotes are fun aren't they. (In no way meant as snark - just ironic that we have such polar opposite experiences.)

BTW, Psion, I assumed that this: "I don't see this experience repeating in 4e." was meant in a more universal sense. My bad. Misread. Appologies.

 

[BryonD]

Really? My understanding is that a very substantial minority never switched from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition; there are certainly far more 1e diehards than 2e diehards. And there were always a lot of people who never 'graduated' from Basic D&D to AD&D.

Oh, I agree that there are plenty of people playing older editions.

I was replying to this:

Those playing earlier editions are a pretty small minority as it stands.

To whatever degree your statement about 1e and 2e is true, that just makes Hussar's claim that much more wrong. But my point is that it just got a hell of a lot less small.

 

[BryonD]

((Although, if you think about it, if nothing changes, we could see how this is pretty much identical to the situation now. 40% changed over quickly, and the other 60% changed over over time. You could say that it's even better this time around with those numbers reversed.))

HUH???? What possibly justification do you have for the presumption that the other 60% will change over time?

I mean, I'm quite certain that 4e will have well more players than 3e in the near term. But to presume that people will switch for no good reason is absurd. You are denying a divide exists, but you just defined it. Last time it was just a matter of how quickly the bulk switched, this time it is a question of how many will at all.

Why are you unwilling to accept that a lot of people really see major problems with 4e? It isn't a slam against you personally or anyone else who does like 4e. But we are not going to switch just because you like it. You play your game and we will play ours.

But that is a divide.

 

[Hussar]

Why BryonD? That's what you consistently fail to answer. Why should it be different this time around? Last time around, it took time for people to make the switch over. Why should it suddenly be that the only people who switch will do so immedietely and everyone else will stand their ground?

Heck, take me for example. I don't play 4e. Never have. Not a single game. I play 3.5. And will likely do so for the next couple of years. We're finishing an Eberron game and next we're doing Savage Tide. Out of my group of 7, 4 are 3.5 only and 3 are half and half.

Yet, we all agree that eventually we'll make the switch. That fits exactly with your numbers.

There are any number of reasons not to make the switch right now. Yes, it could be that people don't like the new edition. It could also be time factors, money, lack of knowledge, or any number of other things. The idea that unless you change immeditely you will never make the switch is ludicrous.

It's funny how your tune has changed though. Before you insisted that everyone made the switch to 3e right away. When that was shown to possibly be false, you automatically assume that anyone who isn't changing is doing so because they don't like 4e.

I'm just showing that it took time for 3e to filter down through the ranks. There's no real reason to think the same thing won't happen again.

Do some people not like 4e? Of course. Then again, lots of people railed against 3e too. There's a reason you can't talk about 3e on Dragonsfoot.

But, eventually, the majority of players did make the switch. What evidence is there that this won't be the situation this time?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I voted three months because I wasn't in a group for the first two. Day the group got together, 3e. Group split because 2e was dead.

This poll is, well, not quite proving your point very well.