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

[ProfessorCirno]

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.'

Did you just compare disliking a game system to the attempted genocide at several different ethnic and social groups, culminating in a horrifying cleansing meant to wipe out hundreds onto thousands of people?

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has been Godwin'd.

 

[LowSpine]

Did you just compare disliking a game system to the attempted genocide at several different ethnic and social groups, culminating in a horrifying cleansing meant to wipe out hundreds onto thousands of people?

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has been Godwin'd.

Yeah, you can't hold back or no-one listens, lol.

 

[LordArchaon]

There we go...

I'm speechless.
I just hope to see a third poster acting like this about what I say, because I'm sure I will then be able to line out a very accurate statistics this time. I'll leave it to the most inquisitive to discover what will be the numerical value involved in it.

 

[Jhaelen]

3) People who come into the game with an open mind universally like it.

Really? I sense a tendency in your post to confuse cause and effect: It almost sounds as if your definition of open-minded was: someone who likes 4E.

In other words: If I am open-minded before trying 4E and don't like it after trying, I wasn't really open-minded at all?

I pretty sure I'll like 4E judging from what I've seen so far. But I'm also sure there are enough valid reasons why someone wouldn't like it.

 

[Cirex]

In my personal case, I got two skeptical players (who will end playing it happily, I'm sure), one that is a bit new to RPGing, so he will play anything and one that, after I said that saving throws (that not salvation!) are passive defenses, already said he didn't like it.

He's very stubborn and traditionalist, so I can feel his passive resistance to change to 4e. I've tried to ask him why he doesn't like 4e, but he just doesn't want to like it. I can't do anything about it, except give it time and maybe he will give it a try.


After browing ENWorld, the pro-4e are a majority and I'm very biased towards it too, but I can't see many things with 4e being worse than 3.5.
However, I can understand that 3.5 is a very complete system by itself and there are many splatbooks to choose feats, PrCs, etc. from. So if someone says he doesn't like 4e because 3.5 has everything he needs, well, better for him then

 

[Imaro]

First let me preface my comments by stating that I am still on the fence as far as 4e is concerned. With that said...

Why is it that in order to be negatively disposed towards 4e, one has to be a sheep or close-minded or whatever. IMHO, I have seen just as many people jump on the positive bandwagon with less than complete information and little more than the assumption that 4e will be better (whatever that means in a broad sense when applied to a game) than 3e.

The problem with telling someone that they should reserve judgement until they actually buy the books is...well the point of marketing is to get me interested in buying the books. If it doesn't well then, for me as a consumer, it has failed at it's purpose. I am not sure I need to spend over $100 on something if the products marketing can't get me interested enough in it to want to. Yes, it's not that much...but in the end I can also spend that money on something else (including expandng my options with other rpg's).

The second thing I have reservations about is that 4e, being reworked from the ground up will have it's own issues that will not be realized until some actual public play is done by gamers. The question then is will these problems be more or less than what I dealt with in 3e and am I willing to spend the money to find out. This coupled with WotC's abyssmal record as far as eratta has given me some pause in being an early adopter. I think 4e may be a great game for DM's but I also see it (unless you are willing to dedicate more money to buying splats, new PHB's and even campaign books) as more limiting to players (as far as possible concepts) than the 3.x core.

Another trend I've noticed is that D&D in general is often lauded as having done something great systemwise when, IME( as a diverse gamer who has tried new systems and games) it is actually doing things other games have been doing for years. How is this a selling point? I guess if one has only played D&D and will only play D&D it is but to me this doesn't really "sell me" on the game (On a side note, I also wonder if this is why WotC can't create another blockbuster game besides D&D).

 

[Shades of Green]

I'm sitting firmly on the fence - I'm definitely no sheep. I neither automatically fall in love with 4E simply because it is the newest edition, nor do I automatically dismiss it because it is new. I'm checking it out very carefully, and while I like much of what I see, I still have my reservations, and I'll buy it only if I could clearly see that it'll benefit my game better than 3.0E. And I don't buy anything just because of how good or bad the marketing efforts are - I'm looking for hard evidence and at least semi-impartial reviews once it gets out.

 

[Piratecat]

I don't feel like starting my Saturday with Nazi references, insults and bickering. Klunk.