D&D 4E Is my friend's unwillingness to try 4e irrational?

[BradfordFerguson]

bah, I tire of the anti-corporate argument. If it costs a player $35 to get MUCH more enjoyment out of the 100-200 hours they spend RPG gaming each year, then what does that say for spending $2 on an energy drink or $5 on a beer? $35 sounds like a good investment for me.

As far as buying all the splat books and Dragon magazine, well, you KNEW those were optional. Those were your choice.

The thing is that people think that they NEED optional rules to customize their characters to high heaven, but they really don't. You could have 100 totally different rogues, just from the PHB. Maybe their mechanics won't be drastically different, but they could all fit different roles in a campaign. It's partly about roleplaying. You don't need rules to reinforce a role. Just play the role.

Brother Mac, it seems that you are looking at your investment in 3.5 and thinking, "Wow, I spent all that money, I enjoy it. Why try something new that I might like more, AND never use all those 3.5 books again?" In the investing world, this is called sunk cost. Continued investment (continuing to play in 3.5) should not be predicated by sunk costs. It would be the same as saying, "well, I dated this girl for 4 years, and since I invested all that time, I gotta stay with her."

So what if you tried 4E, combat was twice as fast, the fighter/ranger/rogue/monk characters got more combat options, casters got more flavor and the players just ate it up...? "well, I dated this this girl for 4 years, and there is a better girl out there who is totally available to me, BUT I INVESTED THOSE 4 YEARS ALREADY!"

That's irrational. But maybe 4E will suck.

 

[Dragonblade]

Because playing D&D isn't just about playing D&D, its about hanging out with friends. And following the OP's scenario, your friends all want to play 4e, and are willing to loan you, or even provide you, with the materials to play. All you have to do is show up and hang out with your friends. There is no expense on your part, no pain, no agony, no nothing. You COULD boycott your own friends over this, or proclaim that anyone who expects you to play 4e is no friend of yours, or whatever. You COULD try to convince yourself that playing 4e will be so painful to you that anyone who figures you'd do it just to hang out with your buds is a jerk. Or you could just shrug, and chill with your friends on Saturday night like you always do.

If you play primarily with acquaintances you met through a notice on a game store bulletin board, people you'd forget in a week if you didn't see them for D&D games, that's one thing. If they start playing 4e and you don't want to, oh well. Find a new group. But not everyone plays D&D in that context, and its reasonable for a group of friends to be put out when one guy proclaims an absolute objection to the game they want to play, and refuses to hang with them because of it. Its not that his dislike of 4e is automatically unreasonable. Its that his ultimatum to his own friends is unreasonable. If everyone but you wants to play 4e, it isn't worth busting up the crew.

Wow! You have channelled my feelings exactly.

I just want to clarify that there is no animosity or anything. Bob is still our friend and will be even if he declines to play in our 4e game.

But myself and the other two members of our group that do most of the DM heavy lifting no longer enjoy DMing 3.5 for reasons that have been debated to death on these boards. Will 4e be the answer? Well, we can't say that definitively. But based on what we have seen we think it will go a long way towards revitalizing the game for us.

The last homebrew game we had died about 3 years ago. If it wasn't for the Paizo Adventure Path my group probably wouldn't even be playing D&D anymore. Thats how burned out we got on doing 3.5 DM prep work.

We want Bob to play with us and our doing everything we can to make it easy for him to do so. Many of you have posted that if he just doesn't like 4e then let it be. And you are right. We don't intend to pressure him or badger him or anything. We have made it clear that he is always welcome and hopefully he will take us up on our offer.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

bah, I tire of the anti-corporate argument. If it costs a player $35 to get MUCH more enjoyment out of the 100-200 hours they spend RPG gaming each year, then what does that say for spending $2 on an energy drink or $5 on a beer? $35 sounds like a good investment for me.

It's not the money, it's the love and enthusiasm. I cannot imagine really embracing 4E and thinking it's awesome, because I know WotC is going to kill it in just a few years. Cost per hour of enjoyment isn't relevant. It doesn't cost me much to watch Lost, but you can bet I'd be very upset if they replaced it with American Idol reruns. It's the "cost" in love and enthusiasm.

Continued investment (continuing to play in 3.5) should not be predicated by sunk costs. It would be the same as saying, "well, I dated this girl for 4 years, and since I invested all that time, I gotta stay with her."

No. It is "I have been with this girl for 4 years and I love her. There are 6 billion people in this world and odd are that somebody out there would be a better match for me, but I am happy and content. So why should I give up one that I love?"

It's a difference between switching because I'm actually unhappy and switching because, even though I am happy, I think I might be happier with a different (city/job/girlfriend/system).

So what if you tried 4E, combat was twice as fast, the fighter/ranger/rogue/monk characters got more combat options, casters got more flavor and the players just ate it up...?

Why would I stop at 4E? Why wouldn't I then try C&C, M&M, GURPS, and every single other RPG out there to determine which I find to be the most fun? Why stop at RPGs? Why not then try every single other hobby out there to see which ones might be even more fun than RPGs? It's the paradox of choice. With so many options, I would be perpetually unhappy if I always thought there might be something better out there. The key to happiness is to be able to look at what you have and say "This is good enough. I am happy and content and don't need anything more." Contentment is a wonderful and under-rated thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

bah, I tire of the anti-corporate argument.

<snip>

So what if you tried 4E, combat was twice as fast, the fighter/ranger/rogue/monk characters got more combat options, casters got more flavor and the players just ate it up...? "well, I dated this this girl for 4 years, and there is a better girl out there who is totally available to me, BUT I INVESTED THOSE 4 YEARS ALREADY!"

That's irrational. But maybe 4E will suck.

You and I read different things from BL's post.

What I found BL arguing against is the "grass is always greener" argument. The GIAG argument goes something like this:

I like X, but somewhere there might be a better version of X (call it X+1), so I shouldn't really be satisfied with X. I should always be on the lookout for X+1.

Of course, the problem with this is twofold. One is that, given as large a potential set as, say, the number of potential rpgs, one could easily spend all their time trying new versions of X without ever actually enjoying any one X at all. The other problem is that the grass is always greener somewhere else. If you find your X+1, instead of enjoying it for what it is, you should be seeking X+2.

Let's put this in terms of that girl. You've been dating this girl for four years, and you are happy. Suddenly, another girl comes along who seems better, and seems totally available to you. Is switching girls really the right move? Is constantly looking for someone better ever going to allow you to have a deep enough relationship to ever feel "at home" with anyone?

Meeting someone new, you have that rush of endorfins. You are literally "high" on them. That girl you've been dating for four years you can see rationally. You know that you are happy. That new girl? Pursuing her is the epitome of irrationality. All you are doing is throwing away something with known value for something with unknown value. And the "logic" that tells you to do this is never going to let you be really happy with anyone. Is this girl X+2? Perhaps there is an X+3 out there.

It isn't loss of the investment of those four years that is at stake; it is loss of the thing that is making you happy right now.

And the cool thing about rpgs is that you don't have to run out and "get the girl" right away. With rpgs, the rational money is on letting someone else test drive her, report back, work out the problems, report back, and then make a decision based on what you've learned at no cost to yourself.

RC

 

[DonTadow]

bah, I tire of the anti-corporate argument. If it costs a player $35 to get MUCH more enjoyment out of the 100-200 hours they spend RPG gaming each year, then what does that say for spending $2 on an energy drink or $5 on a beer? $35 sounds like a good investment for me.

As far as buying all the splat books and Dragon magazine, well, you KNEW those were optional. Those were your choice.

The thing is that people think that they NEED optional rules to customize their characters to high heaven, but they really don't. You could have 100 totally different rogues, just from the PHB. Maybe their mechanics won't be drastically different, but they could all fit different roles in a campaign. It's partly about roleplaying. You don't need rules to reinforce a role. Just play the role.

Brother Mac, it seems that you are looking at your investment in 3.5 and thinking, "Wow, I spent all that money, I enjoy it. Why try something new that I might like more, AND never use all those 3.5 books again?" In the investing world, this is called sunk cost. Continued investment (continuing to play in 3.5) should not be predicated by sunk costs. It would be the same as saying, "well, I dated this girl for 4 years, and since I invested all that time, I gotta stay with her."

So what if you tried 4E, combat was twice as fast, the fighter/ranger/rogue/monk characters got more combat options, casters got more flavor and the players just ate it up...? "well, I dated this this girl for 4 years, and there is a better girl out there who is totally available to me, BUT I INVESTED THOSE 4 YEARS ALREADY!"

That's irrational. But maybe 4E will suck.

However, you're not going to get much more enjoyment out of it. If you're having fun now, you're goint to have the same fun later. That's not a slight, its just that fun is not quanitive. There's no way of saying hey i'm at fun 9 now but 4e pushed me to 10. Heck, every gaming session is different. some are 10s and we've all had the 4s before.

That's the problem with upgrading editions. If there are rules that are broken, bad and plane awful and they make up the entire system, you're going to have a huge migration. If you're saying that things that will make dming better (which a lot of 3.5 books already do), theres a mapping system (which there are 5 spectacular programs for in 3.5).

Wotc wants upgrading to a new edition to be like buying a new game system. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. rpgs are not dependent on technology, so there is no huge upgrade in graphics and interface when upgrading to a new edition. There are some rules changes, but these changes aren't dependent on a system. Meaning there is nothing stopping me from taking one change and converting it to 3.5 if its that important.

As a DM, it sure seems to help out alot, but I"ve created enough scripts, houserules and dm tricks to run my 3.5 game as seemless as 4e seems to be. A lot of DMs have.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, pardon me, but I thought that a large part of capitalism relies upon consumers "voting with their wallet". In this case, deciding not to buy a product is no more anti-corporate than deciding to buy a product. Both are valid expressions of agreement or disagreement with the quality of a product, and/or with the behaviour of a corporate body.

RC

 

[jolt]

If all it were about was hanging with friends then the edition becomes irrelevant. In this context, 4.0 is no better a choice than 4E or 3.x or Basic or Ars Magica or whatever. In fact, if it was just about hanging out with friends, one would think you'd stick with the familiar so you'd have more time to actually play instead of spending time switching, converting, and doing a lot of other bookwork/keeping.

It seems to me that a draw-the-line-in-the-sand decision was made to switch to 4E. Almost everyone was willing to switch; that's great. But that one person who doesn't isn't badwrongfun.

Maybe he just wants to play with friends without having to worry about new editions, rules, conversions, etc. To him, this might all be a load of crap that's cutting into quality time spent with friends and is probably uncomfortable saying anything because he just wants to play with friends but rules and editions have been made the central issue. If I was him, I wouldn't say anything either.

jolt

 

[Ourph]

Let's put this in terms of that girl. You've been dating this girl for four years, and you are happy. Suddenly, another girl comes along who seems better, and seems totally available to you. Is switching girls really the right move? Is constantly looking for someone better ever going to allow you to have a deep enough relationship to ever feel "at home" with anyone?

Meeting someone new, you have that rush of endorfins. You are literally "high" on them. That girl you've been dating for four years you can see rationally. You know that you are happy. That new girl? Pursuing her is the epitome of irrationality. All you are doing is throwing away something with known value for something with unknown value. And the "logic" that tells you to do this is never going to let you be really happy with anyone. Is this girl X+2? Perhaps there is an X+3 out there.

I think RC and Brother McLaren are channeling Nick Hornby (or maybe John Cusack)...

The other girl, or other women, whatever. I mean, I was thinking that, they are just fantasies, you know? And they always seem really great, because there's never any problems. And if there are, they are the cute problems, like we bought each other the same Christmas present, or she wants to see a movie I've already seen, you know. Then I come home... and you and I have real problems, you don't want to see a movie I want to see, period. There's no lingerie... [I have lingerie!] You have great lingerie! But you also have cotton underwear that's been washed a thousand times, and it's hanging on the thing, and... And they have it too, it's just that I don't have to see it, because it's not in the fantasy... I'm tired ot the fantasy, cause it doesn't really exist. And there are never really surprises and it never really... delivers.

 

[Grimstaff]

It seems to me that a draw-the-line-in-the-sand decision was made to switch to 4E. Almost everyone was willing to switch; that's great. But that one person who doesn't isn't badwrongfun.

jolt

I didn't get the impression that the OP expressed any anger or resentment at his friend (maybe you could highlight the part that gave you this impression?) but rather confusion at his reaction to his and his friends' decision to try what looks like a fun new game.

I don't see any difference between this and, say, your usual wednesday night texas hold'em friends wanting to try a little 5 card draw instead. If you suddenly said, "no way, I'll never play that, I'd rather quit!" and stormed out of the room, you would probably leave a considerable amount of confusion behind you.

I think the OP is trying to figure out the reasoning behind his friend's reticence, not trolling for an excuses to start yet another edition war. :\

 

[Grimstaff]

You and I read different things from BL's post.

What I found BL arguing against is the "grass is always greener" argument. The GIAG argument goes something like this:

I like X, but somewhere there might be a better version of X (call it X+1), so I shouldn't really be satisfied with X. I should always be on the lookout for X+1.

Of course, the problem with this is twofold. One is that, given as large a potential set as, say, the number of potential rpgs, one could easily spend all their time trying new versions of X without ever actually enjoying any one X at all. The other problem is that the grass is always greener somewhere else. If you find your X+1, instead of enjoying it for what it is, you should be seeking X+2.

Let's put this in terms of that girl. You've been dating this girl for four years, and you are happy. Suddenly, another girl comes along who seems better, and seems totally available to you. Is switching girls really the right move? Is constantly looking for someone better ever going to allow you to have a deep enough relationship to ever feel "at home" with anyone?

Meeting someone new, you have that rush of endorfins. You are literally "high" on them. That girl you've been dating for four years you can see rationally. You know that you are happy. That new girl? Pursuing her is the epitome of irrationality. All you are doing is throwing away something with known value for something with unknown value. And the "logic" that tells you to do this is never going to let you be really happy with anyone. Is this girl X+2? Perhaps there is an X+3 out there.

It isn't loss of the investment of those four years that is at stake; it is loss of the thing that is making you happy right now.

And the cool thing about rpgs is that you don't have to run out and "get the girl" right away. With rpgs, the rational money is on letting someone else test drive her, report back, work out the problems, report back, and then make a decision based on what you've learned at no cost to yourself.

RC

Wow