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

[Aeolius]

I think 4e cannot win over some of the old guard. The first three 4e books contained many glaring omissions (druid, bard, sea elves, merfolk, etc). I realize these may return in time, but now you are expecting me to purchase six or nine books, to play the game I expected to play with three.

I agree with earlier posters. I dislike class roles, monsters differing from PCs, planar changes, and other elements that distanced 4e from 3e. I didn't care for 2e, but at least there was a conversion manual to help the transition to 3e. The conversion information posted on WotC's site is a joke. It boils down to "played something weird in 3e? Try a warlock in 4e."

I especially dislike the 4e Monster Manual. I want a monster tome that reads like an encyclopedia, not a cookbook.

 

[Khairn]

As to what WotC could do to entice fans of previous editions who do not like 4e? Perhaps release some older, classic campaigns, like the upcoming Giants series, for 4e.

This can be a two edged sword, as the reaction from many FR fans to the 4E changes to that setting can illustrate.

Like many have said before and on this thread, it's unlikely that those who have already looked at it and made up their minds will change them readily. Especially if that change would involve purchase of additional books. I think that it would best for WotC to simply concentrate on releasing the best 4e books that it can. People can decide for themselves whether it's worth playing on their own. I don't think there's much they can do to lure reticent buyers over that isn't also appropriate to appeal to new gamers entirely.

Ultimately I think you're right. New players will most likely look towards the latest edition for their intro to RPG's, and most experienced players have already made up their mind about the game based on what they've read or played. Any significant changes to 4E made to attract existing players who are unhappy with the new edition will probably back-fire for a variety of reasons.

IMHO, the best thing that WotC can do to attract those players who aren't happy with 4E is to make the best products they can, and let their work speak for them. Although an actual new setting designed with 4E in mind, not just a retro-fit of an earlier setting, would be a step in the right direction.

 

[DandD]

By becoming 5th edition in 6-8 years. Then, it'll have to persuade new and old D&D-players of whatever edition too. Some will like it, some won't, just like some don't like playing 3rd edition, and stayed playing 2nd edition, or even 1st edition. No edition can and should try to win over the fans who rather prefer playing the older edition. 4th edition doesn't need them anyway, as its success has already been confirmed, and it will stay for some years, before being replaced by 5th, then 6th and 7th edition, unless a nuclear war or whatever super catastrophe ends all human life.

Then, 4th edition and lower will be for grognards.

 

[Jasperak]

This is simply not true. We have played through the entire Heroic tier to date using just the core books without any problems whatsoever. I could quite easily run a game to 30 using nothing but the core books.

Because each class (excepting spellcasters) now requires a much larger page count to provide all of the information you need to play it.

Just because you and other people happily playing 4e can play with just the core three doesn't mean the rest of us can. We need something more from our games that 4e cannot provide in its current state, whether it be be its lack of options, or differing style. Have fun playing 4e; our hobby needs everyone to be happy.

 

[Psion]

I went with the third option, but really, what I would want to see would be such a total change in direction, it probably wouldn't be realistic to expect it in the space of 4e.

But to put a face on it:
More continuity with pre-4e canon.
Trash 4e wizard and replace it with one with the breadth of options of the 1e-3e wizard. The classic 8 schools are a must.
Break with the 4 roles.
Return to tradeoff between in-combat and out-of-combat elements.
Return to flexibility in skill choice.

For starters.

 

[FireLance]

Well, 4E has won me over, and I've played every edition of D&D since Basic D&D over the last almost 25 years. I wouldn't say that it's perfect though, so I didn't vote for any of the options.

I believe that WotC didn't ignore the old guard, or if they did ignore some of them, it was because they were listening to the rest of them. WotC didn't fracture the fanbase. The fanbase was already fractured in the first place. We may have been using more or less the same rules, but we were using them for almost entirely different purposes. Just take a look at all the different opinions on practically every aspect of the game expressed on ENWorld over the last eight years: rare magic vs. common magic, high fantasy vs. low fantasy, deep immersion role-playing vs. kick in the door style gaming, mysterious, unpredictable magic vs. magic as technology, player ability vs. character ability, careful accounting vs. hand-waving, authoritarian DM style vs. accomodating DM style, wizards should be all-powerful vs. wizards should be balanced with other characters, balance over the encounter vs. balance over the day vs. balance over the campaign vs. lack of balance is more interesting, save or die is good vs. save or die is bad, the need for a real threat of character death vs. the threat of character death is not necessary, magic items should never be bought and sold vs. buying or selling a magic item is an adventure or challenge in itself vs. buying or selling a magic item can be handwaved and assumed to take place in the background, fluff in gaming products vs. crunch in gaming products, heroism should be valued over pragmatism vs. pragmatism should be valued over heroism, and medieval Europe-centric settings vs. kitchen sink settings, just to name a few.

4E does come down more squarely on certain ends of the continuum of gamer preferences, and as a result, some of the old guard, whose preferences lie on the other ends of the continuum, have simply decided not to switch. On the other hand, others of the old guard, some of whom enjoyed playing 3E, but find 4E more to their liking, and others who did not adopt 3E because they felt it was at the other end of the continuum of gamer preferences for them, have been won over by 4E. There is possibly some sweet spot where marginal gain of new players + marginal retention of old players is maximized, but I haven't the foggiest idea where it could be.

 

[Wombat]

I played OD&D (pre-"1st ed") ... and then, barring a few individual games, stayed away from D&D until 3e.

I never made the full leap to 3.5, but did create 3.wombat, primarily based on non-WotC material.

I tried 4e, briefly (3 sessions) and determined that it emphasized the aspects of D&D that I least liked (even more combat intensive and central), while de-emphasizing the aspects of gaming that I really liked (character interactions).

So it would take a massive (and pretty much bloody unlikely) shift to bring me over to 4e; not worth the effort, given the other game systems I have at hand.

 

[Aeolius]

WotC didn't fracture the fanbase. The fanbase was already fractured in the first place. We may have been using more or less the same rules, but we were using them for almost entirely different purposes.

I'll give you that. I prefer running my games on Oerth, the World of Greyhawk. Try getting a room full of GH fans to agree on ANYTHING. You end up with 1e GH vs. 2e GH vs. 3e GH vs. Living GH.

 

[Vancian Magic]

Can't vote really, none of the options fit. Nor am I truly 'old guard' so much as I am just more keen on simpler games like BECMI/RC D&D.

My issue is simply that 4th Ed. is too tactical, it is intrinsically a tactical combat system that they embraced and built around. Not a slight against it or a rant, it's always been the case for D&D.

So I don't like tactical combat much, and therefore I don't like 4th Ed. much either. I won't be 'won over', but I will play it if it is offered and sounds a good campaign. It'll never be my first choice game. I think that's as fair and realistic as I can put it.

 

[tomBitonti]

I believe that WotC didn't ignore the old guard, or if they did ignore some of them, it was because they were listening to the rest of them. WotC didn't fracture the fanbase.

The fanbase was already fractured in the first place. We may have been using more or less the same rules, but we were using them for almost entirely different purposes.

Additional text omitted.

Bold added by me.

I agree with the text that I marked in bold but have a different conclusion. That fractured community was still using the same core rules. The community doesn't seem to be able to use the 4E rules while achieving the same diverse goals. We have always been fractured as far as what kind of game we put together, and how we use the rules. But we weren't as fractured as far as using different versions of the rules.