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

[Bishmon]

I don't think a single person jumped on the original poster for saying he wanted people to like 4e - they jumped on him for suggesting that NOT wanting to play 4e meant something was wrong with you.

Exactly.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

*choke* Oh, please.

 

[Shades of Green]

I think that many people who don't like 4E are those who are put off by the change of many core concepts. 4E slaughters many sacred cows; and if you like a sacred cow or two, you probably won't like it slaughtered. 4E isn't just a mechanics update - it is also a revision of the base concepts behind these mechanics.

This is especially significant for people who have detailed campaign settings of their own design. Some have put years upon years of work into these worlds. And then 4E comes and changes the very basics of how the world works - magic behaves differently, PCs have a different role, and there are far less magic items than in 3E.

So, I get the feeling that 4E is more appealing to those who wish to start anew in a new setting than to those who have a beloved, well-developed setting they don't want to abandon (or significantly modify, or spend a lot of time writing massive house-rules to make 4E work with their previous setting).

 

[LowSpine]

They have found that complaining and hate are a group bonding activity. A human hates something and is vocal about it. Other humans around them agree for the sake of group bonding. It is the pack mentality. This is what happened to the Germans and WW2. It is in most human's nature.

I am grumpy and used to moan and complain allot. I was very vocal. What I noticed is that no matter the subject as long as my complaints were plausible then people around me would follow suite like sheep. I believe in individuality so it got on my nerves. Instead of thinking 'Wow I am really good at inspiring a mob to burn torches that a hate mongering manipulator like Adolf Hitler would have been impressed' I thought 'think for yourselves.'

I now don't complain or moan or hate monger, not because I am not grumpy, but I cannot stand group mentality.

But this is my point - Group bonding through positivity is a very very slow process. People feel that if their opinion changes in a positive way they are somehow risking something. Risking their money, or their safety or usually just risking looking stupid.

Fence sitters always side with negative (and negatives are usually more powerfully vocal as well) opinions. If you want to sway a fence sitter get all alpha male and make the nay sayer look like an idiot. Put him down like a rabid weasle. Make him go home crying. The sick thing is you it would work. Group mentality makes me sick.

'Light the torches we're going to Castle Frankenstein'
'We're going to have hanging yawl'
'Burn the witch.'

 

[GnomeWorks]

Why is it that anyone who likes 4e is enlightened, but anyone who dislikes it is obviously a freaking sheep?

Guess what - 4e is not the most awesomest thing evar. If you think it's better than 3.5, fine, that's your own deal, but don't harsh on people who disagree with you.

There are legitimate grievances with 4e, such as the fact that it seems to be pretty much useless for anyone interested in a simulationist game.

So kindly don't presume that someone who dislikes the game dislikes it simply because it's change, or it's different, or because their social circle doesn't like it.

 

[LowSpine]

Why is it that anyone who likes 4e is enlightened, but anyone who dislikes it is obviously a freaking sheep?

Guess what - 4e is not the most awesomest thing evar. If you think it's better than 3.5, fine, that's your own deal, but don't harsh on people who disagree with you.

There are legitimate grievances with 4e, such as the fact that it seems to be pretty much useless for anyone interested in a simulationist game.

So kindly don't presume that someone who dislikes the game dislikes it simply because it's change, or it's different, or because their social circle doesn't like it.

I am not saying the negatives are sheep. It is the fence sitters that tend to be sheep and follow the negative. Doubters are fine, but I would say that because I am a terminal doubter. I am weary about some elements of 4E - but I find ways to deal with it in a balanced way - for a start if 4E was perfect then I couldn't sit around pondering for hours how it could be altered and improved.

I do hate the negatives - those people who can't deal with change and cling on to anything even if it is clearly not as good as the new - or simply don't like anything and feel the need to vent their bitterness on everyone else around them. If they can't be happy then why should anyone else. They blind themselves to the possibilies of innovation. As people get older they become more negative. That is why when you get old and stuck in your ways you have to die. If you didn't the world, and social, economic and genetic evolution, would grind to a halt and we would all be stuffed.

I am getting old, but I refuse to be a grognard. I can't understand why anyone would want to think like an old fart with all these new fangled contraptions. I set a video recorder timer. I can even navigate a mobile phone menu.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I am not saying the negatives are sheep. It is the fence sitters that tend to be sheep and follow the negative. Doubters are fine, but I would say that because I am a terminal doubter. I am weary about some elements of 4E - but I find ways to deal with it in a balanced way - for a start if 4E was perfect then I couldn't sit around pondering for hours how it could be altered and improved.

There is always room for improvement. While I dislike 4e, 3.5 is not a perfect system, either.

I do hate the negatives - those people who can't deal with change and cling on to anything even if it is clearly not as good as the new - or simply don't like anything and feel the need to vent their bitterness on everyone else around them. If they can't be happy then why should anyone else. They blind themselves to the possibilies of innovation. As people get older they become more negative. That is why when you get old and stuck in your ways you have to die. If you didn't the world, and social, economic and genetic evolution, would grind to a halt and we would all be stuffed.

Okay, so let's review: fence-sitters are sheep, and nay-sayers are bitter grognards. Got it. Because that's so much better.

Not all "innovations" are good things. Not only that, but "good" is relative, especially in something like gaming. 4e is not "clearly" better than 3.5 - if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am getting old, but I refuse to be a grognard. I can't understand why anyone would want to think like an old fart with all these new fangled contraptions. I set a video recorder timer. I can even navigate a mobile phone menu.

Not everything new is better.

 

[Shadeydm]

And however, there's an easy way to distinguish the two typologies you say: stubborn ones are the ones that before trying, already have bad fawningly positive opinions about it..

as opposed to the first typology, which will more likely stay focused on his first thoughts, that may be "it's like a videogame" Its the greatest thing to happen to DnD evar or other already-said-many-times things, or simply "I don't like it, I love it full stop", without explaining why or what... This "generalization" doesn't always work because when a normal approach occurs, (which is, the "stubborn" or even "open-minded" people buy and read the books, as you say) the stubborn may have an occasion of changing his mind alone, reading the book, which is a lot easier, while the open minded who maybe simply didn't like liked the game for some issue related to the limited nature of the preview rules, could discover that the full rules, on second thought, look much better worse.
These again, are my opinions, and are, again, things that any psychologist could tell you. I'm not a psychologist, I'm just interested in it.
However, if you think it a different way, you could also for example tell us your opinion, and given the emphasis you gave to the illogical nature of what I say, you could also give me logical arguments that contradict mine, and I will be happy to change idea...

So all your aggressiveness was maybe caused by my wording, which is that of a non native speaker in first place, and of someone who's speaking about generally "difficult to accept" psychological matters.

There we go...

 

[LowSpine]

The way I see the editions.

OD&D - Good first try. An innovation but a baby that needed to grow up with experience. Vancian casting is crap.

Basic D&D - Streamlined, massively improved and good flowing OD&D. Not enough complexity or options. Too much on the fly. Vancian casting is crap.

1st edition. More complexity, improved options but clunky and messy. A train wreck. Vancian casting is crap.

2nd edition. A slight improvement on 1st edition. More options, but still a complete trainwreck. Vancian casting is crap.

2nd edition player options. Interesting - but still just 2nd edition. Vancian casting is crap - eh hang on they add magic point options - oh but everyone hates that, and it still basically vancian casting.

3rd edition. A move back to some simplicity almost retro'd back to basic D&D, but in some ways more streamlined (the whole D20 thing - no thaco - 3 saves that make sense, ability scores give just a bonus instead of stupid bounses etc), then they bunged lots and lots and lots of options, hurray. Multiclassing is broken, spells are still broken because people would cry. Vancian casting is crap.

4th edition. Thankgod. D20 still. Vancian casting is rid of - or at least reduced - casters can actually spend the day casting. Saves that make sense (defenses + duration save.) Spells look like they are fixed - no save or dies, polymorphs, everyone hasn't got a stupid pet, wizards aren't going to steal all the rogue's abilities, but better. Everyone can do something a little more interesting than - roll to hit, roll to hit, roll to hit, you hit roll damage, roll to hit, roll to hit, roll to hit, blah, blah, blah.

I don't like everything. For example - it is D20, why do monster powers regenerate with a d6? It's stupid. That's just a starter. I hate the Warlord name. I don't want Dragonborn and Teiflings wandering around like it is everyday. Feather Yon Oaf - give me a break.

Besides, trust me when I say that when I see the whole rules I am going to have plenty to winge about. What I don't I don't get is - almost everything I have seen so far has been a mass improvement so any blanket dislike seems just negative.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

People that dislike 4E before ever having bought all 3 core rulebooks and played at least half a year are grumpy old grognards that wouldn't know a good game if it dealt 10 negative levels to them with one blow.

People that like 4E just because it pretends to fix their inability to run an effective 3E game are naive sheep with low attention span disorder that would probably even know a bad game if it would require them to sacrifice cute kittens and puppies.

That should cover the extremes.

---

I am usually a liker. There's something new out there? Let test it! It might be fun! (But only if it's new - if it's something old, like AD&D, I won't touch it if I don't have to).
I like my attitude better. It seems to improve the likelihood of me discovering something interesting.
But that doesn't negate the possibility that if someone (possibly me, but not in the case of 4e) looks at previews or similar information that he comes to the conclusion that he will not like something.

There are things where I am not such a big liker. Food, for example. I usually dislike trying out new food. I am always skeptical about it, and as a kid, I would claim I could never like it and if I was made to try it anyway, I would have never been able to admit that it might have not tasted as bad as I thought. It's difficult to evade this trap. Once your there, there seems no going back. But even as a kid, I wasn't always wrong when I predicted I wouldn't like something. Sometimes you were right, and can proudly proclaim so. Sometimes you're wrong, and can't admit it. And if you're getting older, sometimes you're wrong and can proudly admit it.

What I wonder - can the opposite also happen? Can a liker like something just because he wants to like? And feel unable to admit if he was wrong?
I see less potential for that.

From my position as someone that likes what he sees so far and is pretty optimistic, I don't really believe that 4E will fail me. I could be wrong, but I find it unlikely. But I am still willing to admit if I am disappointed in the end. And that's why I don't trust the opinions of any "hater" if he doesn't also reserve a similar doubt that his opinion may be wrong and that 4E could in the end be a game for him (not just for someone else!) as much as I trust a "liker".