PLayer's pre-opinions more important than quality of system

[Kitirat]

OK oI did not have this issue with 3.0 from 2.0, perhaps because there had been a large break between it and our playing of 2.0, however I have now played or demoed 4th ed a good number of times (over 10). I have found a very simple trend.

1) If people want to like it they will. (as to be expected)
2) If people come into the session not wanting to like it, it simple does not sway them and they find many things to hate.
3) People who come into the game with an open mind universally like it. Unless, someone who wants to dislike it starts complaining or does the "its a video game" stuff. And then the open minded tend to follow suit.

In 3.5 this did not happen. People tended to not be as swayed by the people who did not want to like it and those who did not have a open mind often started to like it.

Here is why IMO. The combat system is now simply better. It is better in most every way but simulationism. However, unlike 3.0 which simply made 2.0 better, 4.0 actually alters the basic game concepts MUCH MORE. Low level people are now much more powerful (irritates the people who want to start as farmers and build up) and since there are now TACTICS instead of just strategy, those who want to compare it to a video game can. As most video games are tactics games. And because you are playing pregens and there is a fun tactics game in front of you, it is easy to make the comparison.

i.e. the whole tactics are peanut butter and roleplaying is chocolate comes into play.

Regardless of why, what strikes me most is this simple thought. If you have a mixed group (some who are open minded and some whom are people looking to dislike it) I would NOT demo it to them. Wait till the books come out and let a little time pass. When you do have them try it, let them have made their own characters so they have interest in roleplaying. At that point the tactics addition to the game becomes a plus to the RPG and strategy components, instead of a substitute (in their mind).

So far, when I have run extended games using the lite rules with people who want to play, we have univerally had a ball. And say what you will about skill challenges, but they actually make the game more fun so far from my experience. They get everyone involved in non-combat aspects and thus far have not hurt the roleplaying times.

See ya,
Ken

 

[That One Guy]

What about playing some sessions w/ pro-4es and open-minded people, and then playing it with that group +naysayers? Has anyone tried that combination?

 

[Thasmodious]

Regardless of why, what strikes me most is this simple thought. If you have a mixed group (some who are open minded and some whom are people looking to dislike it) I would NOT demo it to them. Wait till the books come out and let a little time pass. When you do have them try it, let them have made their own characters so they have interest in roleplaying. At that point the tactics addition to the game becomes a plus to the RPG and strategy components, instead of a substitute (in their mind).

I was planning to start my tabletop group with H1 and its pregens/quick start to let them sample it. But, after two of my players have arbitrarily taken a generally negative, its an MMO, type of attitude, I started to think it would be a bad way to show the game - with just pregens, rules lite, combat oriented. So I agree with you and I am starting with character generation after the books come out. My campaign start features a decent amount of RPing, a skill challenge and only a smattering of combat.

 

[Jack Colby]

I don't doubt that your observations are true in the situations you've encountered, but as an overall truth about the game and people's reactions I can't agree. Some of what you state as fact is your own opinion (3e simply made 2e better), and cannot be used as evidence. My own experiences also differ, in that I was incredibly excited for and ready to love 3e, but it eventually turned me off completely. The "video game" comparisons were made back then, too, if you'll recall. I don't think 4e has anything to worry about... it's just going to be a bumpy ride on Internet forums and among hardcore players of earlier editions until 4e becomes the accepted norm for most D&D gamers.

 

[LordArchaon]

I generally agree with Kitirat, because it's a studied psychological phenomenon what we're talking about: it's the difficulty encountered by people with changing ideas. Most people find it irritating at best to change their previous opinions, they see it (unconsciously) like a personal defeat.
The most stubborn are even likely to assume madness-related behaviors like complete blindness to logical evidences, instead of changing their minds.

The good point is that, given that fortunately there's also open-minded people, with them, the initial approach could however be important. If you make them test the system with pregens hacking and slashing in a dungeon crawl, there are good chances that they'll start believing 4e is all about combat and it's not a classical RPG anymore. And that is bad.
So me too, I'll resist the temptation and I will not buy Keep on the Shadowfell, at least not before the rulebooks.

Another point which is important IMO, is that there are TWO very distinct groups of gamers. One is composed by the enthusiasts, 75% or more of which are DMs, 90% of which are here in the ENWorld forums and/or, even more, on the Gleemax forums.
The other one can also be made of enthusiasts generally speaking, but for a number of reasons, they don't have access to all the buzzworld, they just come across the news randomly and don't investigate them further, saying "I'll see when the books come out". I guess 90% of female players are like that, given that they surf the net much less, but I could be wrong. However, this group is not small, it includes many many players, and they're likely ones that enjoy playing the game, but do not enjoy all the analysis and "overknowledge" that the first group enjoys.
The typical 4e tests are proposed by members of the first group, the overly-knowing-and-informed-enthusiasts to a number of other people which is, from what I see and what I can think, composed by maybe another like them, and other 3 or 4 of the second group, the normal-not-so-informed-players...
I THINK, IMO... That the people of this "normal group" always feels a little different from the "ultra-enthusiast" ones. This could lead to the same problems already stated. They could see the very enthusiasm of the DMs, which are probably 4e likers, as a valid reason to start being diffident about the new system. Because they know the amount of time the 4e liker DM passes on the net on the forums and on the rules etc, and they partly envy it, partly consider it bad, but in general, they don't want to "turn like that", so they could tend to construct opposite views as a form of "unconsciously-needed" differentiation.

These are all opinions, not many of them can be supported by logic, many of them are however supported by direct and indirect experience. Take them as personal opinions only, anyhow.

The result of the thought however is this: if 4e is presented in a neutral/natural way like "They made a new system, why don't we give it a try?", you would obtain better reactions than those obtained presenting 4e like I think we do, saying "Hey man, you don't freaking know how cool this 4e's gonna be, you really don't know... I just tell you that there are endless maneuvers and powers for PCs and monsters alike, all of which are just perfectly balanced, and you can kick ass since level 1" and so on... We must always take into account that people is generally diffident towards change, and a little empathy (the neutral approach), combined with a better knowledge of the rules, could be the only way we could really show the improvements of 4e to our players.

 

[Kitirat]

I don't doubt that your observations are true in the situations you've encountered, but as an overall truth about the game and people's reactions I can't agree. Some of what you state as fact is your own opinion (3e simply made 2e better), and cannot be used as evidence. My own experiences also differ, in that I was incredibly excited for and ready to love 3e, but it eventually turned me off completely. The "video game" comparisons were made back then, too, if you'll recall. I don't think 4e has anything to worry about... it's just going to be a bumpy ride on Internet forums and among hardcore players of earlier editions until 4e becomes the accepted norm for most D&D gamers.

Good points, let me clarify some of my inital words. When saying 3ed just made 2ed better, I was refering to the general sense of 3ed built heavily on 2nd and its changes were not as massive as 4ths are from 3rd (especially in class design). i.e. it is easier to disassociate 4th from 3rd than 3rd from 3nd (and yes it was an opinion).

Also I was not on the boards heavily in the 2nd to 3rd era so I do not know how it was discussed.

The main point however is still an opinion, but an informed one, which is if you have naysayers and doubters, I would wait for the books and not demo before hand to prevent the posioning of the waters.

 

[Stalker0]

Yep, preconcieved notions can definately have an impact.

For those stubborn people, trying to change their minds with crazy notions like logic isn't going to work

Here's what you do.

Get the 4e books, and then have your friends over to do something completely not 4e related (make sure the stubborn ones are invited). Then leave your 4e books on the coffee table, not prominently placed, just so they can be seen. If the guys are gamers, they'll look at the books.

And then say nothing, let them flip through the pages, answer any questions they have, but don't give any judgments. For many stubborn people, they have to change on their own.

 

[BASHMAN]

wow, people who like 4e are "open minded" and people who don't aren't or are sheep who are manipulated by those who aren't. Classy.

Oh, bonus points to the guy that explained how people who don't like 4e are not used to "new fangled" notions like logic!

When did EN world become the Fox News of the gaming community?

 

[Minicol]

Yep, preconcieved notions can definately have an impact.

For those stubborn people, trying to change their minds with crazy notions like logic isn't going to work

Here's what you do.

Get the 4e books, and then have your friends over to do something completely not 4e related (make sure the stubborn ones are invited). Then leave your 4e books on the coffee table, not prominently placed, just so they can be seen. If the guys are gamers, they'll look at the books.

And then say nothing, let them flip through the pages, answer any questions they have, but don't give any judgments. For many stubborn people, they have to change on their own.

Indeed, some people are stubborn enough to believe that a little MMO inspired boardgame can be D&D, just because there is a logo and vaguely similar art on the cover.

I would have taken offence with your post, but the rest of what you wrote is actually quite fair. Just don't expect it to work on everybody though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

3) People who come into the game with an open mind universally like it. Unless, someone who wants to dislike it starts complaining or does the "its a video game" stuff. And then the open minded tend to follow suit.

El.

Oh.

El.

You make some generally good points, but you're starting from a REALLY questionable place.

To re-phrase: "The demos will be good if your group is already excited for 4e, but they're not good enough to win over any fence-sitters, and might reinfoce some negative stereotypes due to their limits. Because they're just demos, it might not be a good idea to force your group to go with 'em. The game is incomplete, here, and it shows. Go with the demos if you're TOTALLY PUMPED, but otherwise, just wait until you can see the whole thing."