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

[DM_Blake]

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.

So, how do we distinguish between the people who try the game and don't like it because they are stubborn and filled with madness, and the people who try it and don't like it because they simply don't like the game?

Maybe they don't like the game because their complete blindness to logical evidence prevented them from changing their minds.

Maybe everyone who doesn't like 4e is simply stubborn and mad.

Yeah, I like where this is going...

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.

Oooooh, statistics.

Did you know that 92% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Hmmm, hard to guess whether these statistics are in the 92% or the 8% bracket.

I bet 90% of female players might object to your generalizations.

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...

Assuming your statistical breakdowns have any bearing on reality to begin with, I still think it's wildly assumptive to assume the levels of enthusiasm amongst play test proposers and play test participants.

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.

... confused ...

These are all opinions,

The first truly believable thing I've found in this post.

not many of them can be supported by logic,

The second.

many of them are however supported by direct and indirect experience.

Please, do share. Or your streak ends at 2.

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.

Or, we could just get some books and play the game.

If 4e is generally better, or generally worse, or generally about the same, then I have confidence in my players, and in fact, in all the other players I've grouped with over the years, that those players will draw their own conclusions without needing me to manipulate them, or needing me to coddle them by controlling my own attitude about it.

They won't need me to "really show the improvements of 4e" - they will see them for themselves, assuming there are any to be seen.

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly.

So, I'm inferring from your post that you don't think 4e can stand on its own merit.

We can't simply allow our players to get their own books and read them. We can't simply set up a game, gather our friends, roll up characters and play the game.

Heavens no, if we do that, then our flies won't enter the parlor.

4e is to lame to win the approval of players without us coddling their conversion?

I, for one, will assume my players are smart enough to form their own opinions. If 4e sucks, my players will know it. if 4e rocks, my players will figure that out all on their own.

No coddling needed.

Sheeesh, with all this talk of breaking them in gently, brainwashing the stubborn non-believers, using coddling tactics to get them hooked, I'm almost ready to start believing those wackos who tell me that D&D is a cult...

Do we have a secret handshake?

 

[Umbran]

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

Roughly the same time when one person's opinion came to represent the entire site - which is to say, never.

Folks, it is really easy to overgeneralize. It is also really easy to become annoyed by someone who does, and easy to respond to in kind (meaning, with even more overgeneralization). But good things usually don't come easily. So, I'll ask you to not take the easy way.

Which is to say, let's keep our collective cool in here, please.

 

[Umbran]

So, I'm inferring from your post that you don't think 4e can stand on its own merit.

I think this is an interesting study on prejudicial tendencies, because I took the exact opposite from the post.

Meaning: give people a near zero-cost chance to just look at the books, and the game will speak for itself. There is no coddling here - there was answering of questions, but no attempt to make judgments for them.

When people feel forced to do something, they'll resist. When they feel like they have to pay for something, they'll resist. When people feel you're trying to sell them on something, they'll resist. When you give them the chance to make up their own minds, they'll do so.

So, how much of each of our readings comes from pre-conceived notions on each of our parts?

 

[I'm A Banana]

When people feel forced to do something, they'll resist. When they feel like they have to pay for something, they'll resist. When people feel you're trying to sell them on something, they'll resist. When you give them the chance to make up their own minds, they'll do so.

So, how much of each of our readings comes from pre-conceived notions on each of our parts?

Yeah, I think that's almost right. Or, at least, that's probably what he was trying to say.

What it ended up kind of sounding like is almost the same thing, except for "When you give them the chance to make up their own minds, they'll do so" might bre replaced with "When you give them the chance to make up their own minds, they'll love 4e because it's clearly superior."

The good points are everything EXCEPT that last sentence.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Just a quick comment.

2nd Edition needed overhauling BADLY.. very BADLY. So 3.0 had a warmer welcome lets say. It was solidly built and brough D&D back to life.

Now 4th edition... is a bit early ? 3.5 isn't asking to die yet. So I'm still prone to bitching about 4th edition... I'll beleive it when I see it

 

[Bishmon]

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.

Seriously? So if someone doesn't like it, they didn't have an open-mind? Or they did, but they yielded to the opinions of others? Really? Would you like to take another shot at phrasing your argument?

Here is why IMO. The combat system is now simply better. It is better in most every way but simulationism.

And this argument simply falls flat. It's better in most ways except simulationism? Um, what if a player is looking for some simulationism in the combat? Wouldn't that person be completely reasonable in not liking it?

Like you said yourself, 4E alters the base concepts much more. It should be no surprise that there's plenty of reasonable, open-minded people who aren't going to like 4E because of those new base concepts.

Your post wasn't entirely off-base, but you really needed a lot more nuance to avoid the ridiculous generalizations.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

When people feel forced to do something, they'll resist. When they feel like they have to pay for something, they'll resist. When people feel you're trying to sell them on something, they'll resist. When you give them the chance to make up their own minds, they'll do so.

What Umbran said.

Though I personally do tend to agree that pre-opinions do carry quite a bit of weight, and that word-of-mouth CAN make or break a game. (Witness the movie industry; how many movies have sunk or swim based on word-of mouth?)

When 4E was announced, I was firmly in the "Don't Like" camp, based off the scant rumors we heard, and the debacle that was the closing of the print-era of Dungeon/Dragon magazines (amongst other things, but I don't want to turn this thread into a flame-war.)

As time passed, I heard some bits I liked, but not enough to sway me to the "Like" camp. (I give the Rouse some credit here, because he seems like a cool, level-headed, generally affable guy, and a good "Front-Man" for the line.)

But the nagging perceptions lingered, and Wizards hasn't really helped their case any in my eyes. Sure, we're getting more previews, but overall I think the game is heading in a direction I don't care for (not so much with the mechanics, which I can always tweak, but it's feels more that I have issues with the design pilosophy.)

The biggest detraction for me?
The DDI/online intiative. It's been brought up before, but WotC is touting the DI as a cornerstone of the 4E experience, yet we've seen no visible signs of improvement with Gleemax or the WotC website, not to mention the sorry state of digital DUngeon/Dragon. (Not so much with the content, [which is more-or-less the same as before] as with the presentation.)

So, I'll say it IS tough to overcome those inital perceptions, but it is certainly possible. I'll at least pick up the Core Books and leaf through them. Whether I buy them or not? It's up in the air, depending on the content of the books, and the state of the online initiative as the books drop. But I'll certainly TRY to be open-minded about it.

 

[hexgrid]

So, how do we distinguish between the people who try the game and don't like it because they are stubborn and filled with madness, and the people who try it and don't like it because they simply don't like the game?

It's actually pretty easy to tell the difference, in my experience.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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).

Emphasis mine. That's the exact opposite experience I had with 3e. Everyone I knew wanted to play it because it was so different from 2nd ADnD. The core mechanics were completely revamped and made a lot more intuitive sense.

Though I haven't encountered a problem yet, I'm sensing that some of my friends won't want to leave 3.x because they consider it such a good system, and are not willing to take the risk for 4th ed, which looks too similar to them on some level.