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

[El Mahdi]

This kind of sums up the wonkiness with 4e almost entirely.

It's like they realized that 3e was almost fine as-is, and the only way they could justify a full 4e (as opposed to a 3.75 or 3e REVISED or whatever) was to completely abandon 3e and just make a fantasy RPG that used d20's.

They kind of ignored the question of: "Okay, we have people who like 3e now. How do we make them like 4e?"

Yeah, I think that was on oversight in their design and marketing philosophy also.

It sounded like the designers and other WoTC staff were having a lot of fun playing 4E in-house. And those who have switched sound like they are having a lot of fun (which is absolutely great - play on). But as far as designers and staff, they came to 4E in an evolutionary manner. They played it through all of it's bugs and revisions and watched it develop in front of them based on their feedback. That creates an immense amount of ownership and familiarity with the system, and although probably not the only reason, it could be a big reason for their own enjoyment of the system. But yeah, I think this can create the danger of tunnel vision. The "We love this system, how can anyone else not love it" that could have led to this oversight.

Anyways, just my purely biased, subjective, non-in-the-know opinion.


edit: A quick P.S. to this: I think WoTC did absolutely everything they could, advertising and teaser wise, to try and excite people about the upcoming new edition. I can say that personally, I was chomping-at-the-bit to get my hands on 4E. I think like Kamikaze said though, they did everything right, except make a game that would appeal to a lot of 3E gamers. I'm sure they thought it would appeal to them (and me), unfortunately for us (and them) it didn't.

But, as I've said earlier, since I've bought almost half of their offered 4E products so far, my switching or not has probably had no impact at all on their bottom line.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that if 4E put more emphasis on in-character immersion it would have been more readily embraced.

 

[Greg K]

I doubt there's a 3E gamer that doesn't feel there are shortcomings with 3E. The majority of us (at least I did) were greatly anticipating 4E, especially because we thought that it might "fix" the problems with 3E. Instead, it created an entirely new system with it's own new problems.

This is true of myself and the people with whom I play.

 

[Shadeydm]

Tough one.

I am not entirely sure if I qualify as old guard. I am 40 and have been playing since around '82 however I played ADnD, 2E, 3.x and I am currently playing 4E.

I think between KM in post #51 and Shark in post #6 most of my issues with 4E have been touched upon. I think I should add that I also find things like knocking oozes prone or CaGI working on constructs and mindless undead distasteful to say the least.

The bottom line is my group switched so I switched, I am still having fun playing DnD but this is due to the group not the new edition. I am sure I would be having just as much fun if we switched to 1E.

I can only hope that by the time 5E is here the designers will realize that the departure from prior editions was too dramatic and adjust the next edition accordingly.

 

[Darrin Drader]

4E is fundamentally flawed to the extent where the only thing they could do to win me over is start over. They would need to start by ditching the repetitive powers system and go back to class abilities and feats to determine a character's most effective attacks. Finally, don't waste so much space and give us a full set of races and classes in the core books. I have absolutely no problem buying additional books, but if I feel ripped off by the core books, I'm not spending any more money on the system.

Since I don't see any of these things happening with 4E, I've written it off completely and look to others for my D&D support.

 

[Samurai]

Many people have pointed out that they'd like massive changes, enough that they are extremely unlikely for WotC to do, enough that "4e is no longer 4e". Well, that may not be something that WotC wants to do, but if there were a very permissive GSL or OGL for 4e, it's certainly something 3PP could do. We saw it in 3e with C&C, True20, MnM, and many other examples. They took the basic game rules and made massive changes, such as a damage save instead of hit points, fewer or no classes, changes to the skill system, etc.

With that in mind, if WotC were to open it up and allow the system to be used with such big changes, it might help more people make the switch, albeit not to WotC version, but some 3PP version. You might still need to buy the PHB and DMG, though. Given a large number of apparently unsatisfied people, would this be a good thing for WotC (get more people to buy and try the game) or a bad thing (if the 3PP version proves as or more popular with a large segment of the audience)?

There is an intermediate option here as well... an "Unearthed Arcana" for 4e. A book chock full of optional rules and rules changes, such as power points, fewer or no healing surges, no (or changed) milestones, allowing a wizard or cleric to choose rituals in place of powers in order to recreate the combat/non-combat trade-off, new multiclassing options, etc, etc. I know I'd be VERY interested in such a book, and see it as far more necessary in 4e than it was in 3e. This would allow at least some variety of options without chancing a 3PP stealing the thunder, and it keeps the focus on core 4e while still providing massive, "no longer really 4e" options for players and GMs who want them.

What do you think?

 

[Greg K]

With that in mind, if WotC were to open it up and allow the system to be used with such big changes, it might help more people make the switch, albeit not to WotC version, but some 3PP version. You might still need to buy the PHB and DMG, though. Given a large number of apparently unsatisfied people, would this be a good thing for WotC (get more people to buy and try the game) or a bad thing (if the 3PP version proves as or more popular with a large segment of the audience)?

There is an intermediate option here as well... an "Unearthed Arcana" for 4e. A book chock full of optional rules and rules changes,

What do you think?

Well, considering that it was 3pp material and the UA that really got me to play DND despite owning the 3.0 core, I think both would be a good idea.
I don't know if I would switch to 4e, but I would be more much more likely depending upon the products released.

 

[SHARK]

i.e. "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34) ?

Greetings!

WOW.


Just WOW. This is just incredible. D&D *isn't* ALSO about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people?

I love combat. But honestly, it seems D&D is about BOTH these elements. NOT either or. This is...gosh, how simplistic and binary in thinking can you get?

D&D is about *many* things. I have players that love combat. I also have players that--while they have fun with combat--they are far more interested in socializing, exploring, roleplaying, interacting with mythical creatures, and generally pursuing a dozen other ambitions, goals and pleasures--than purely hacking down everything they meet.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[I'm A Banana]

The more I read from James Wyatt, the more I think that he does not know what I want in my D&D games...he was the voice of one of the more horrible ideas for 4e's idea that all planes should share the same cosmology from the MotP interview, too.

Maybe all 4e needs to do to win me over is to fire James Wyatt.....and maybe get Robert Schwalb to do more instead.

 

[Jasperak]

D&D is about *many* things. I have players that love combat. I also have players that--while they have fun with combat--they are far more interested in socializing, exploring, roleplaying, interacting with mythical creatures, and generally pursuing a dozen other ambitions, goals and pleasures--than purely hacking down everything they meet.

It used to be about roleplaying. Now with 90% (Admittedly a number pulled out of my backside) of the rules devoted to what happens on your battlemat, it has lost the meaning of what D&D is to me. Granted it doesn't stop roleplaying and even added Skill Challenges to help facilitate other than combat rolling but even then those challenges amount to Non-combat combat.

It is incredibly difficult for me to articulate though I can sum up my feelings about 4e like this. It isn't about the player anymore, its about the character and its stats. A player's abilities and knowledge don't matter, only the numbers on the character sheet. I think 3e started this and 4e continued it with their skill challenges.