Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Micah Sweet]

I think many more people can become appreciators of things they don't like with some effort. But it's simply that many people don't judge that change to be worth the effort.

Like, I grew up as a very picky eater. It's something I still struggle with; there are a lot of foods I don't enjoy despite making consistent efforts to try new and varied options. But my palate has slowly expanded over the decades with repeated exposures to new textures and flavors.

So maybe it is naive to think that people can learn to accommodate new approaches. But naivete and optimism are often the same action, just from different lenses.

I feel 1.5 years of 4e play as a GM and a player is a fair chance.

 

[AnotherGuy]

See, neither the narrative flavor nor the codified gamism of 4e work for me. It just doesn't do what I want D&D, or RPGs in general, to do.

That's fine. I was not knocking your preferences.

For me it it had to make sense in the fiction why a person could only try something once/encounter.
If one watches a UFC match the person is able to attempt the same move many times during the fight.
What I wanted was to tie that codified gamism to stamina and the exhaustion track from a simulation perspective.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a meaningful difference between excluding dragonborn from play because you do not like them and having an issue with the actual engine of a game. If you perceive the game not to cater to your preferred playstyle then you effectively are excluded.

Then you are excluded from everything disliked. I don't like fish, because the fish game engine(taste) excludes me. It's a nonsensical position.

You are excluded if 1) you are refused access directly, or 2) if they design it in some way to specifically to exclude you. 4e did neither of those things.

4e's game engine was not designed to keep me, you, or @Micah Sweet from playing it.

Now one can attempt to make adjustments to the engine in the hopes of making it more suitable to one's playstyle, but that may require some time and may bring about its own frustrations.

This I agree with. I wasn't excluded from 4e, though, even though the core of the game was something I disliked.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing you like has changed even slightly. Your books still exist. What's happened is that something new has come out. You're not obliged to buy it. They're not obliged to cater to you. Engage with it and see if you like it, or don't.

Never said they were. I can and have moved on. And if they hadn't decided to call their new game D&D we wouldn't be having this discussion. But very few RPGs decide to radically alter their product, multiple times, while inexplicably (from a creative standpoint) calling it by the same name and acting like it's basically the same game. D&D's special that way. I was happy to get off the train, and they can publish what they want, but 4e absolutely did contract it's support to a subset of what it was, and that excludes people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine. I was not knocking your preferences.

For me it it had to make sense in the fiction why a person could only try something once/encounter.
If one watches a UFC match the person is able to attempt the same move many times during the fight.
What I wanted was to tie that codified gamism to stamina and the exhaustion track from a simulation perspective.

I completely understand that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I feel 1.5 years of 4e play as a GM and a player is a fair chance.

I think it is also fair though to say that one's experience with a RPG is also influenced in no small part by the GM.
I had not-great GM siblings running 4e for me (they would have been horrible in any edition to be fair). It just so happened that I only experienced 4e as a player under them.
Conversations on Enworld allowed me to expand my mind not only with regards to 4e but with RPGs in general. It cannot be overstated how much exposure to others here has taught me and influenced my game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, I spent over a year running and playing 4e, and at the end of it I enjoyed it less, as the things I didn't care for about it bothered me more and more. My experience with PBtA games didn't lead to liking how they work either (although I can enjoy short games of Monster of the Week). And my experience with PF2 didn't work for me. So it can go the other way just as legitimately IMO. So just deciding to like something you don't seems naive to me.

that a game system doesn't appeal to your or someone else's tastes still doesn't mean that it was at all designed to exclude you or them, you're taking neutral design decisions with unwarranted personal offence.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel 1.5 years of 4e play as a GM and a player is a fair chance.

Just because you weren't able to make that change doesn't change my recommendation that people should try to make that change. (And this isn't specifically about 4e, this is a broader consideration.) If you can't, you can't. If the opportunity cost for trying is too high, then no one is forcing you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it is also fair though to say that one's experience with a RPG is also influenced in no small part by the GM.
I had not-great GM siblings running 4e for me (they would have been horrible in any edition to be fair). It just so happened that I only experienced 4e as a player under them.
Conversations on Enworld allowed me to expand my mind not only with regards to 4e but with RPGs in general. It cannot be overstated how much exposure to others here as taught me and influenced my game.

Well, my GM was my best friend, and a great GM with a lot of experience in all editions of D&D to that point, and the story was great. People liked the campaign I ran too. The issue for both of us was the system, and we never felt any better about it. I also hated the lore changes, but that's a secondary concern.

Your general point is true, however. Exposure to others makes a huge effect on play. But it doesn't guarantee you'll suddenly like the changes that get made to a game that actively take it further away from what you enjoy, no matter how much time you spend trying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just because you weren't able to make that change doesn't change my recommendation that people should try to make that change. (And this isn't specifically about 4e, this is a broader consideration.) If you can't, you can't. If the opportunity cost for trying is too high, then no one is forcing you.

As I said, I did try. The opportunity cost wasn't too much for me. But it didn't work.