log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E Paizo and 4e - Vive le Revolution!


log in or register to remove this ad

Lackhand

First Post
I'm inclined to believe EN World is, if anything, inclined towards grognardism, though.

I know that's why *I* love it, so I certainly hope I'm right ;)

Sure, there are more grognardy places -- imagine the same polls on Dragonsfoot! -- but we're pretty methodical around here.

Except for hong.
 

GVDammerung

First Post
Rechan said:
A split implies some sort of 50/50 division. I'm seeing a 2/3rds majority versus minority here.

I won't quibble over what percentage constitutes a "split" but I will say this -

IF 1/3rd OF D&D PLAYERS DON'T SWITCH TO 4E THEN:

1) 4e IS TOAST; and
2) THERE IS A VIABLE 3X MARKET AFTER 4e IS RELEASED.

Split? If only 2/3rds of 3x players switch to 4e, Wotc will have a splitting headache, the kind that gets people fired because there new edition just underperformed.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
GVDammerung said:
IF 1/3rd OF D&D PLAYERS DON'T SWITCH TO 4E THEN:
1) 4e IS TOAST; and
O RLY?

How many new players do you think 4e will pick up?

Because I'm willing to bet that a third or fourth of the 2e players didn't switch to 3e, and 3e survived.
 

DandD

First Post
Rechan said:
O RLY?

How many new players do you think 4e will pick up?

Because I'm willing to bet that a third or fourth of the 2e players didn't switch to 3e, and 3e survived.
Also, don't discount the potential newcomers who actually might want to try out D&D 4th edition because it is getting rid of some game mechanism that previously kept them away.

I for example really liked how they got rid of THAC0, variable save rolls, different XP-charts, and that strange oddity about Strenght having a special subscore if you were a Fighter/Paladin.
I gave up playing "The Dark Eye" 3rd edition (which I considered to be superior rules-wise compared to AD&D 2nd edition), and switched to D&D 3rd edition, when I took a look to the new rules-set.
 

T. Foster

First Post
JamesM said:
Mr. Slavicsek wrote for Star Wars D6 and he was, I believe, its line editor for a time early in its run, but he did not write the game itself. That honor goes to Greg Costikyan, a true legend in the RPG industry.
Going a step further back, the core system of WEG's Star Wars rpg was adapted from the Ghostbusters rpg, which was designed by Sandy Petersen, Lynn Willis, and Greg Stafford.
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Sunderstone said:
All these threads all point to the same thing imho.


We dont need a 4E drastic change at this time, if we did the overall fanbase obviously wouldnt be this split over it. Folks are fine with some of the clunky rules, house rules, etc. Heck, some new fixes via Errata to stuff like Grappling and Polymorph would be fine.

WotC on the other hand says, tough we are getting one anyway because we need it. As many have said before WotC is in the business to make money. So THEY obviously need 4E more than we do.

Despite all the stuff about 3.5 WotC is so bad, we still play it (most of us), we still have great campaigns running, and designers at companies like Green Ronin, Paizo, Necromancer, Goodman, etc. continuously pumped out really good product.

Take a look at what Erik Mona and the gang at Paizo did over in Dungeon/Dragon magazines...
How could so many people love the APs or even have such rave reviews of some adventures that appeared in Dungeon magazine if the game itself was that Broken ?

Same for the popularity of Freeport, or the goodman modules, or some of the Necromancer stuff.

Even further, look at the some of the books from WotC themselves.... The Dragonomicon, XPH, Red Hand of Doom. How could so many people even play with and/or through all these great products if the game was that broken, let alone rave about these books.

WotC says its broken because they want a new edition obviously more than we do, they get paid this way. "The Progress Bus" comment made me laugh. It's a clydesdale-led bandwagon with a great big WotC carrot leading, plain and simple (again imho).

3.5 is extremely playable, peoples campaign journals, great modules and APs proved this. So I repeat yet again, if it was that broken.... how could we be this split over it?
Just because it's not broken to the point of being unplayable doesn't mean that there aren't some serious issues that need fixing, and which justify enough changes to warrant a new edition. Just because something is good doesn't mean it can't be significantly better.

Certainly, Paizo's adventure paths are well-loved. And their data says that participation in them drops off at higher levels once the sweet spot is exhausted. The claim being made is that you could rewrite those adventures in 4E and make them as fun to play, and to run, at 20th level as at 7th.

(Also, I think a lot of the reason that Paizo's adventures are well-loved is due to the strong writing, independent of the game mechanics. They, like the other companies mentioned, just know how to provide quality product, and could probably do it in any game system, broken or not.)

We've been playing 3.5 long enough to know where the weak spots are, and 4E is, according to the developers, being designed not to patch those weak spots, but to provide a structure that eliminates them completely. I don't see why the existence of 3.5, which is a totally playable system, and one I plan to continue playing indefinitely, means that D&D can't be improved. Seriously, where are you getting that idea from?
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Rechan said:
Well, let's take a look at EnWorld's fanbase, on polls conducted in this forum.

About views on 4e in general How do you feel about the edition right now? (65/35 good/bad). And then you have polls that look at specific elements of 4e that have been revealed; Do you like Per Encounter abilities? (78/22 yes/no), Do you want Save or Dies? (66/22/7 yes/no/don't care), What do you think of the new Cosmology? (70/14/16 Like/Dislike/Indifferent).

A split implies some sort of 50/50 division. I'm seeing a 2/3rds majority versus minority here.
I'm seeing a lot of completely useless results from self-selecting groups comprising terrible sample sizes and answering questions that may or may not bias the responses. I vote in polls here, but all they tell us is how the few people who vote in ENWorld polls on subjects they are personally interested in feel about the subject. The error term on any conclusion you draw would be big enough to have its own gravity well, with unwary statisticians trapped in orbit around it.
 

Fobok

First Post
Sunderstone said:
We dont need a 4E drastic change at this time, if we did the overall fanbase obviously wouldnt be this split over it. Folks are fine with some of the clunky rules, house rules, etc.

...

So I repeat yet again, if it was that broken.... how could we be this split over it?

The fanbase was just as split over 3e at this point prior to release. I remember it quite well as I first started reading ENWorld to get away from the negativity that was filling the net.
 

Stereofm

Adventurer
Supporter
DandD said:
However, to be fair, this message board is not very representative of the normal gaming populace interested in D&D.

It could very well be that in reality, 9/10 of every D&D-gamer wouldn't want a 4th edition.

Of course, it could also well be that 99.9999% are in favour for the upcoming 4th edition.

I keep seeing this often.

For the record the lowest statistical law is valid with a sampling of around 50 people. then the precision only gets better.

So Yes, these polls are probably valid ... as a trend. No stat is ever the full truth.
 
Last edited:


Stereofm

Adventurer
Supporter
GVDammerung said:
2) THERE IS A VIABLE 3X MARKET AFTER 4e IS RELEASED.

Split? If only 2/3rds of 3x players switch to 4e, Wotc will have a splitting headache, the kind that gets people fired because there new edition just underperformed.

Yes.

There is probably a market, though a lot smaller than the full current market. Getting that market together is probably quite a challenge OTOH.

I know I would definitely buy 3.5 indie products after 4e is released, but would the others follow ?
 

Stereofm

Adventurer
Supporter
Dr. Awkward said:
I'm seeing a lot of completely useless results from self-selecting groups comprising terrible sample sizes and answering questions that may or may not bias the responses. I vote in polls here, but all they tell us is how the few people who vote in ENWorld polls on subjects they are personally interested in feel about the subject. The error term on any conclusion you draw would be big enough to have its own gravity well, with unwary statisticians trapped in orbit around it.

How is this not true with any poll ?

After all, if someone stops me in the street to ask about my next political vote, I won't be necessarily inclined to bother
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Stereofm said:
I keep seeing this often.

For the record the lowest statistical law is valid with a sampling of around 50 people. then the precision only gets better.

So Yes, these polls are probably valid ... as a trend. No stat is ever the full truth.
It depends entirely on whether your sample is representative of the larger population. If you're asking a question about what to do about fuel prices, and you only poll SUV owners, you're going to get a different result than if you poll a randomized sample. The people who answer ENWorld polls in the 4th edition board do not constitute a randomized sample.
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Stereofm said:
How is this not true with any poll ?

After all, if someone stops me in the street to ask about my next political vote, I won't be necessarily inclined to bother
Which is why polls are not reliable sources of information. Read the fine print at the bottom of a published political poll to see how often the statisticians expect their own poll to be completely out of touch with reality. There are lots of times throughout the last 20 years in which a political candidate gets a surprise victory. Why was it a surprise? Because the pollsters failed to predict it.

Also, having a very large sample size helps to remedy the tendency for respondents to self-select. Political polls usually have a minimum sample size somewhere around 500. Still, if you ask 500 lawyers their opinion on the price of legal-sized paper, you'll get a different answer than if you ask 500 random people. Perhaps a very accurate portrayal of the opinions of lawyers, but not an accurate portrayal of the larger population.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
Dr. Awkward said:
I'm seeing a lot of completely useless results from self-selecting groups comprising terrible sample sizes and answering questions that may or may not bias the responses. I vote in polls here, but all they tell us is how the few people who vote in ENWorld polls on subjects they are personally interested in feel about the subject. The error term on any conclusion you draw would be big enough to have its own gravity well, with unwary statisticians trapped in orbit around it.
The bolded section, Dr, is all I wanted to illustrate when I referenced said polls.

As I said before. We cannot make inferences about the larger D&D Playing Community based on Enworld, for obvious reasons. We can, however, make inferences on ENWorld posters who come to the 4e boards and answer the polls.

My point by quoting the polls conducted on this forum is that the people on this forum are, as a majority, positive about 4e. Despite the vocal displeasure in many of these threads, those who hold the negative opinions are in the minority.

Fear not, Doc. I took stats and research methods too. ;)
 
Last edited:

catsclaw227

First Post
Dr. Awkward said:
Just because it's not broken to the point of being unplayable doesn't mean that there aren't some serious issues that need fixing, and which justify enough changes to warrant a new edition. Just because something is good doesn't mean it can't be significantly better.
I agree. It is interesting how this argument is so strong for a new edition, that very few of the 4e dissenters can't/won't seem address this.

Dr. Awkward said:
Certainly, Paizo's adventure paths are well-loved. And their data says that participation in them drops off at higher levels once the sweet spot is exhausted. The claim being made is that you could rewrite those adventures in 4E and make them as fun to play, and to run, at 20th level as at 7th.

(Also, I think a lot of the reason that Paizo's adventures are well-loved is due to the strong writing, independent of the game mechanics. They, like the other companies mentioned, just know how to provide quality product, and could probably do it in any game system, broken or not.)
Again, I agree. It is interesting how this argument is so strong for why Paizo does 3.xe so well (and that they would likely succeed in the same way with 4e), that very few of the 4e dissenters can't/won't seem address this.

Dr. Awkward said:
We've been playing 3.5 long enough to know where the weak spots are, and 4E is, according to the developers, being designed not to patch those weak spots, but to provide a structure that eliminates them completely. I don't see why the existence of 3.5, which is a totally playable system, and one I plan to continue playing indefinitely, means that D&D can't be improved. Seriously, where are you getting that idea from?
I agree. It is interesting how this argument is so strong for a new edition, that very few of the 4e dissenters can't/won't seem address this.
 

Dragon Snack

First Post
Because we don't trust WotC to do it right. It looks like a bunch of changes (some of them to things that only seemed to become "issues" recently) with very light playtesting (appearances may be deceiving, but perception is reality - for now at least).

D&D 3.x can be improved, but wholesale change isn't necessarily the best way to improve it...

As for a 3.Paizo, I would like to see what they would come up with. But my jury would still be out on that too...
 

GVDammerung

First Post
Rechan said:
O RLY?

How many new players do you think 4e will pick up?

Because I'm willing to bet that a third or fourth of the 2e players didn't switch to 3e, and 3e survived.

IMO, 4e will not bring to the game nearly the number of new/not-currently-active gamers that 3.0 did. 3.0 was "the perfect storm" of a new edition launch. 4.0 is not. Anecdotally, I was there for both "BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS." 3.0 was greeted with excitement and enthusiasm. 4.0 was greeted this past Gencon with a big "meh" and a scattering of boos. They only people really hyped worked for Wotc. For 3.0 there was a ground swell. For 4.0, there is a sharp division of opinion. If 1/3rd of 3X gamers don't switch to 4e, 4e will "fail" in terms of expectations and perhaps sustainable numbers for Hasbro's purposes.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top