What would it take for 4E to win over the old guard? (Forked Thread: Changeover Poll)

[El Mahdi]

I just looked up what the OP voted. Guess I was correct.

Lucky Guess!

 

[Starglim]

Somewhere between #3 and #4.

To me, while many of its design principles are solid, the latest version badly needs a 4.5 edition to incorporate the revisions made since release (and have another go at things the design team have tried, but failed, to fix) and to reinstate support for events outside of combat. I don't believe that the sorts of changes needed can be made convincingly in errata or in supplements such as PHBII/DMGII. Since WotC have brashly ruled out such an event, it will have to be called 5th edition.

The Bard, Druid, Gnome, Frost Giant etc. are not the root of the problem and have already been covered by third parties anyway.

 

[Samurai]

Dude! Really!

If anything, simply from the poll and the question, I'd think it sounds more like someone who likes 4E, and wants to know what it would take for 3E'rs and other edition players, to play 4E. But I highly doubt that's the case also. I expect that it was just based on curiosity, but I really don't see anything in the OP or the question/poll to ascribe such motives or make such assumptions.

The line "Nothing! It's perfect as-is" REEKS of sarcasm becaquse of the word "perfect".

That still doesn't mean that the OP hates 4E. That's a response that a lot of people on here have expressed (whether that's a healthy expression or not). He simply put an option on a poll that says what a lot of people here have expressed, and he wanted to see how many people feel that way. How does that mean that the guy who made the poll must "hate 4E"? There's a leap in logic there that doesn't make sense.

I just looked up what the OP voted. Guess I was correct.

No, Herschel, you aren't correct. I don't "hate 4e". In fact, I've bought not only the 3 core books, but 6 of the splat books for it as well. Why do that if I hate it? I do think it needs some work, but I say that about every game. However, this thread is a fork off of the other thread, in which a third of those polled said they'd tried 4e and switched to something else, and another third said they haven't even tried it. In my own experience, not one player in my town is even willing to try it, for various reasons. So my point is, what is it, if anything, that can reach out to the people who either haven't/won't try it, or who tried it and disliked it, because together that's over 2/3 of the ENWorlders polled, and a rather large and significant percentage of the gaming populace if extrapolated out, especially the older, more hard-core gamers of 25+ years.

D&D used to be the "game everyone played, the game you can always find players for"... well, I can't get a single person to actually play 4e! 3.5 is still the only game in town that people play, and I'm trying to find just what people think it will take to change that, or if I should stop buying 4e and hoping to eventually get some use out of the books...

Also, the "perfect" line wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all. I meant it as "4e is fine as it is, and people need to adjust to it, not it adjust to the people." But each line only has a 100 character limit. Maybe "perfect" wasn't the best choice of words, but it came from the classic "Why does everyone hate me, am I that terrible [sniff]?" "No dear, you're perfect just the way you are". So everyone saying "I like 4e, there's no option for me in the poll", yes there is, it's option 1. The next 2 boil down to "add to the game" and "make some core changes to the game", and the 4th option is "no changes are going to work for me, bring on the next edition..."

 

[darjr]

I read the poll options as very snide to 4e fans as well. Assuming that the 4e old guard that don't need the game to change must assume, in blissful ignorance, that it's perfect and then the 5e jab in the last option.

and way to gang up on the young new player folks. I thought new players were a good thing.

 

[joethelawyer]

For me, the game just went too far in a direction I won't go in. They would need to radically change so much, that it would no longer resemble 4e. Basically they would have to throw out all of 4e, go back to 3.5, and begin again. Basically do what Pathfinder is doing, and simply fix what was broke, rather than start a whole new game system. They would never do that, because to go back to 3.5 and start there would be tantamount to admitting a total and utter failure with the direction they went in.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

I'm not going to vote, but I admittedly get a sadistic kick out of edition wars. And for reference, I'm 26 and have played every edition except Basic. I guess I'm Mid-Guard?

FWIW - I still like 1E and 2E a great deal and will happily play either. 3E was fun, but eventually died under the weight of its own splatbooks. Sure the splatbooks were awesome, but there were also 6000 of them and as it went on, I didn't feel like I had a good handle on the system anymore. Someone always wanted to bust out the UA at an inappropriate time or play a Fighter in a group of Swordsages.

4E... oh, 4E. On the one hand your mathematical core is as stable as a well maintained OS X. Your monsters can be run straight from the MM if need be and your gameplay streamlined like a precision machining line. It's really a shame that you're so ******** bland.

I will continue to play 4E as despite my many objections, I still feel like it has the most potential for any system thus far. If there were only a way to break the constrains of "powers" and let the system run more freely - now that would be a thing of beauty. I trust a 3PP somewhere will steal the math and do just that.

 

[Drowbane]

4e took too many wrong turns. In my mind, its not D&D. Pathfinder is the most likely heir to 3e.

WotC's 4e has no chances at my wallet. I've played it, and I would play it again, and perhaps again... but eventually I'd want to "get back to D&D".

 

[Jasperak]

Seriously. No sea elf, locathah, or merfolk. No sea hag, greenhag, or annis.

And the 18 people who care for those over all others count for what? Probably my favorite things from 3.5 are the Anchons, they're not "core" and not in the new, first MM either. The ones you list are niche creatures and not the "common" ones. It's not like they won't be coming, but expecting every critter and humanoid in the first book is rather ridiculous, don't you think.

I guess I'm part of those 18 and I expect that if WOTC is going to take away most of the non-combat info from the monsters, then they could at least keep in the same amount of monsters that 3e had. BTW those listed by Aeolius are in the 3.5 MM niche or not.

Food for thought
3.5e 418 seperate listings though some but not all have variations
4e 103 seperate listings though most seem to have multiple variations

3.5e 20 pages of dragons for 9 types
4e 8 pages of dragons for 5 types

Has anyone counted the amount of monsters in both Monster Manuals

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I've been playing since 83 (?) so I guess I might count as "old guard".

I was excited about 3E when it came out. I like D20 variants. I like optional rules. In fact I've strip mined 4E for somethings as well.

But for me to all the way 4E?
It would have to be a different game.

I think WOTC's handling of the rollout of the game was insulting and botched.
I think the edition wars and the proponents on both sides have contributed to me not wanting to actually play 4E.
I think that my one time running a 4E game, showed that it's a good game. A well designed game, but it doesn't feel like D&D to me. It feels like a gussied up version of the D&D miniatures game. Which while fun, is not my idea of what I'd use to run my D&D game.

4E would simply have to be another game. Right now IT IS another game. It sits right along side M&M, SpyCraft, Arcana Evolved and Hero System. Maybe one day I'll run it, but not anytime soon...

 

[Herschel]

I guess I'm part of those 18 and I expect that if WOTC is going to take away most of the non-combat info from the monsters, then they could at least keep in the same amount of monsters that 3e had. BTW those listed by Aeolius are in the 3.5 MM niche or not.

Food for thought
3.5e 418 seperate listings though some but not all have variations
4e 103 seperate listings though most seem to have multiple variations

3.5e 20 pages of dragons for 9 types
4e 8 pages of dragons for 5 types

Has anyone counted the amount of monsters in both Monster Manuals

You're operating under the assumption those critters aren't coming in MM2 (which I mentioned). Do you honestly think Frost Giants are no more? How many hundred splatbooks did 3E have?