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

[roguerouge]

says important stuff about why getting the GSL out early to third party publishers would solve the "X doesn't work for me" problems of 4e and provide more diversity to the system and the fan base.

Right on. XP awarded.

 

[cildarith]

4Es problem is not just mechanical for me (some of the mechanics are great); it is philosophical. No longer is D&D what any of us imagine it to be! Now it is what WoTC say it is! It is a minatures based tactical wargame with a few ill designed subsystems (these needed another year of playtesting tweaking mimimum) for non-combat. Indeed, the DMG even tells me what is FUN now despite the fact that some of the things that are NOT fun (travelling, limited food and water, encumberance etc) have produced some of the most compelling gaming I have ever had! I know some people hate these things. Fine; ignore these rules if you like, but let me have them. I will not tell you what D&D is if you allow me my vision in return.

Instead, they have designed a ruleset that "takes us back to the heart of D&D" as if THEY are the final arbiters of the game. The problem is that D&D has been "owned" by this community, from the moment Gygax penned the first book and many of us NEVER agreed with how he meant the game to be; the concept is just bigger than any one person or group or company. The OGL was a legal embodiment of this principle that WoTC have foolishly tried to bury along with the idea that we have any ownership of D&D. I suspect they will soon learn who "owns" D&D, to their cost.

There is a certain "corporate facism" at the heart of 4E that I find repellent. I hope they learn from what ensues in the next few years. In answer to the OP; for 4E to win me over, WoTC will have to STOP telling me what is fun and limiting my options as player and DM. I will certainly use 4E for a subset of my games but I will NEVER convert over completely. 3.5E is just a much better ruleset for certain kinds of game and THAT is the heart of WoTCs failure.

This matches my opinion as well. Very well said!

 

[Azgulor]

Well, I'm not sure if I'm even "Old Guard" or not (I've been playing for 15 years, but here on ENWorld that almost seems like being a newbie), but I chose:

Forget 4E, it'll never win me over, and they just need to make sure 5E is closer to what I like.

It's not that I think 4E couldn't be fixed, but the amount of change I feel is necessary would probably make it into a completely new edition. So, the above poll choice is the most accurate for me.



In my opinion, the biggest things needing fixed are:

• Less reliance on powers so they don't "define" the classes so much. Let the abilities of the class define them, rather than "Powers".
• Less specific Powers, so like Feats and Skills in 3.xE, you have more adaptable options to envision different character concepts. One of the awesome things about 3E when it was released IMO, is I felt I could create almost any fantasy character I could envision or read about in a book, using the rules as written, right out of the gate with just the PHB. I don't feel like this is possible with 4E.
• More complexity and options in the "rules". The rules have been oversimplified and need a "happy medium" between 3.xE and 4E. (I think Pathfinder has done a good job attempting this. I'm eagerly awaiting their final product. I'll definitely buy it to steal ideas for my own houserules.)

But then again, as I've said in the other related polls, I've bought almost half of the available products released for 4E so far. So, even though I'm not switching, it's probably inconsequential to WoTC.

I agree with just about everything El Mahdi's listed above. However, the 4e debacle, i.e. WotC's poorly-executed marketing campaign and rollout, have pretty much assured that ship has sailed. In addition to making/modifying an edition that "undid" much of 4e, it would also take an official admission by D&D developers that WotC did frak-up the 4e rollout and that intentionally dismissing a significant and loyal part of their fan base was a bonehead move. Since neither of those things will ever happen, I'd put the chances of 4e ever winning me over at 0%.


I've got OGL games and Pathfinder for my ongoing gaming support and more importantly, I've got a great many more publishers like Green Ronin, Paizo, and Mongoose who suit my tastes better than WotC ever did, even prior to 4e. 4e just cemented the break once and for all.

 

[Azgulor]

This matches my opinion as well. Very well said!

Yup! Ydars covers it pretty well.

 

[Azgulor]

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?

I think the current treatment of the OGL/GSL issue by WotC makes this a very unlikley, although not impossible, possibility.

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

This is me exactly. 4e is not perfect, but it fixes all of the stuff I despised about 3e. As such I consider it an improvement over 3e. In some cases, a VAST improvement such as making the DMs life so much easier.

 

[Samurai]

I think the current treatment of the OGL/GSL issue by WotC makes this a very unlikley, although not impossible, possibility.

Sadly, I agree the 3PP part seems unlikely.

However, I think WotC doing a 4e Unearthed Arcana isn't very far-fetched....

 

[Wootz]

I think WotC did this because the "old guard" freakin had their editions already. 3 of them. I'm 17 and like 4e a lot better than other editions. I'm not sure if I can afford the rulebooks that they're shipping out in "packets" (I'm quite poor, I don't even own a computer to type this on) but I appreciate that they're making it easier for me to swallow. And hell, who knows, maybe several years from now I'll be whining and bitching about how D&D died with TSR too. Maybe. But for me and my friends, we have a blast with 4e, and we like not having to flip through our books to find out what this attacks how with what modifiers involved or what skill this should require, we just have fun, and I'm glad they made the game much easier to understand. Some of the complaints against 4e are ridiculous. "The monster manual is too small" seriously? I flipped through the 3.5 MM and most of the things I saw taken out of the 4e MM were for good reason, considering 99% of those things were just disgusting blobs with teeth.

 

[DaveMage]

"The monster manual is too small" seriously? I flipped through the 3.5 MM and most of the things I saw taken out of the 4e MM were for good reason, considering 99% of those things were just disgusting blobs with teeth.

4E is definitely the game for you.

 

[Wootz]

4E is definitely the game for you.

No kidding. I like some of the stuff from earlier editions, but overall, 4e has won me over. Most of the crap that made D&D feel really cluttered was thrown out, and the classes were made to showcase the skills they truly excelled at.