# Changeover poll



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 11, 2008)

This is a poll concerning whether you changed over from earlier editions of D&D to 4th edition D&D (this is not an Edition Wars thread.)
  There is no need to post, just vote in the poll if you would like.
  I am curious as to the results.  Very curious indeed.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## DeusExMachina (Jul 11, 2008)

I would, but it seems you forgot to add the actual poll...

Anyway, I (and my whole group) changed from 3.5 to 4e...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 11, 2008)

The poll is up.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 11, 2008)

I have one longstanding, infrequently-played Dragonlance campaign that will probably remain in 3.5, but my most regular gaming is now in 4E, and we're loving it.


----------



## sjmiller (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted that we have not played 4e and are going to be playing an earlier edition.  I read through 4e and found I did not like it and would not run it.  A couple of others have skimmed 4e and none of them are interested.  Since I am the only one willing to run a game right now, that means we will not be moving to 4e.


----------



## BraveSirRobin (Jul 11, 2008)

I will be switching over, but I am still finishing up 3.5 games.  As such I did not vote.


----------



## vazanar (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, it's summer..... what's D&D? The few games we've played the last month or two have been 4e. I think we will finish Rise of the Runelords/Age of Worms mix in 3.5. Then the group seems to want to go 4e for our homebrew, Crimson Throne, and eventually return to Iron Kingdoms high seas.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted for "slight changeover"...but it's more complicated than that. 

I'm in a number of different groups.

One group is a very casual group, and we're currently playing Keep on the Shadowfell (and enjoying it quite a lot).

Two groups are in the midst of 3.5 campaigns, and we'll be sticking with 3.5 at least until those campaigns end.  One of those campaigns will likely end late this year or early next; the other one will likely be ongoing for several years still (we're in Age of Worms, only on the 5th adventure, and we don't play very often).

The last group plays a variety of campaigns; we may try 4E, but I suspect we'll stay primarily with 3.5 with that group for some time.


----------



## Insight (Jul 11, 2008)

Playing 4E, not looking back...


----------



## haakon1 (Jul 11, 2008)

*Ratio*

The initial ratio at launch of 55% for 4e v. 45% for earlier editions seems to be holding.

Actually, right now, it's:
- 48% 4e
- 7% mixed
- 44% earlier edition
This assumes that what people are playing and what they like are essentially the same thing.

I predicted more will change to 4e over time -- a month is not enough, it would seem.

Most interesting are the 7% in the middle.  That seems like a small number of "undecided voters".  Will their numbers increase gradually (it seems inevitable since the earlier editions are out of print) and will they then move more towards 4e (I think some will, but TBD on how many)?

If the 55/45 holds for a significant period (e.g., 6 months to a year), I wonder what WOTC will do?


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm continuing to DM my Xen'drik Savage Tide in 3.5 and have started playing in Wik's 4e game.

Both!
-blarg


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2008)

At this point, the poll is showing nearly 40% "No Change" of some kind.

Not what WotC would like, I'm sure.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 11, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, the poll is showing nearly 40% "No Change" of some kind.
> 
> Not what WotC would like, I'm sure.




Yeah, I'm sure a poll on an internet forum featuring less than 70 votes is a real nail-biter for them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2008)

Did I say that the poll was statistically valid?  Did I say that the sample size was sufficient to make marketing decisions?

No.  I merely made an observation.

If- and that's a _big_ if- numbers like the poll's hold up over time, that would be bad news for WotC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

haakon1 said:


> a month is not enough, it would seem.



No, it is definitely not enough. In my group, everyone bought the books, and we all want to play - we were anticipating at least since we got the Races & Classes and World & Monsters books. But, we also have a Torg campaign (just started), we had 3 D&D 3.5 campaigns (adventure paths) and had an Iron Heroes campaign.
My IH campaign is off and I am now running KotS (and will also run the follow-ups)
One of the 3.5 campaign (Savage Tides) is being converted to 4E - our first session will be tomorrow (finally, _I_ get to play D&D 4!)
And the remaining two I don't know, but I don't expect it to be happening soon.

So we might actually play 3.5 for several months, even though we otherwise are definitely pro-4E and won't start any more 3.5 campaigns! It is hard (and often undesirable) to change mid-campaign. We did it with Savage Tides only because the DM felt tired with mastering 3.5 at that level (~10-11), and the previous switch to Pathfinder didn't change anything. 

And we hopefully won't have to give up our Torg campaign. Torg cannot be substituted by D&D, regardless of edition. It stands on its own. 

After several months of anticipation, we've had "only" 1 real game of D&D 4. I wouldn't be surprised if it's even harder for other groups - not everyone has weekly sessions. (Actually, even we sometimes get that done, especially since a few of us work further outside and have night and week-end shifts)


----------



## Crothian (Jul 11, 2008)

I need:

Played 4e, knows I will play 4e in the future, but not quite done with 3e yet.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 11, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Yeah, I'm sure a poll on an internet forum featuring less than 70 votes is a real nail-biter for them.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, my halfling campaign finished up a month or two ago (maybe three now?), and my epic game campaign finished up this last Monday. That group (both groups = one set of players) is now launching 4e; we played a short session Monday after finishing the epic campaign and making characters. 

My 'beta' group is currently playing Red Hand of Doom, and is just finishing part 1. The party consists of a gnomish illusionist, a monk and a druid/wizard- hardly promising for converting to 4e at this stage of the game. So we're staying 3.5 to finish out RHoD, which might take a while (or might end in a tpk, you never know).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 11, 2008)

My group is in no rush.  We'll probably poke around with it in August, and decide what we'll do from there.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jul 11, 2008)

Still playing OD&D.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 11, 2008)

I've played 4th, thought it was a fun game, but it doesn't feel like D&D to me, nor does it have the depth I enjoy in a roleplaying game (minis game or MMO, yes, but not and RPG).

I'll be launching a new campaign in September using the Pathfinder beta rules. At this point, I intend to stick with Pathfinder so long as Paizo continues support for it. If the alpha is any indication, it does a satisfactory job maintaining backwards compatibility while fixing most of the common problem areas of 3.5; high level play will not be fixed in the beta, but I expect it to be by the final release.

I did buy the 4E core books, but I don't intend to use them unless it's an odd one-off or I'm playing in someone else's game.


----------



## hazel monday (Jul 11, 2008)

Playing Pathfinder. Not looking back.


----------



## Transit (Jul 11, 2008)

Same here.  Pathfinder is the future.

(for me and my gaming groups anyways, IMHO, YMMV, etc.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2008)

4e ain't the only fish in the sea. It's there if I need a Michael Bay edition, but I'll do other stuff with my time (including other editions) mostly.


----------



## KingCrab (Jul 11, 2008)

My group is currently still doing 3.5 Savage Tide, but soon we'll be instituting some (off topic) 4e sessions to explore the new rules.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 11, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, the poll is showing nearly 40% "No Change" of some kind.
> 
> Not what WotC would like, I'm sure.



Well, they don't have to be concerned. Unless, I am an exception they'll still sell their books. I haven't played 4E yet (and voted thusly), but I've bought the core books and will most likely buy many of the supplements even if I won't be able to use them in a game for years to come.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jul 11, 2008)

Sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder. Trying to buy up the books that remain to complete my 3.5 harback collection.


----------



## Roland55 (Jul 11, 2008)

Sorry ... nothing matches my situation.

I don't 'change over.'  When a new Edition comes along, I see it as a whole new game.  If I like it, I add it to the list of games I play.  I don't just stop playing an older Edition just because it isn't shiny any more.

That way ... lies madness.

I am playing 4E.  A little difficulty finding locals who want to try it.  And I'm not enjoying it as I thought I would (I've enjoyed every other Edition).  But it's early yet ... I'm patient.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 12, 2008)

Total changeover to 4e at this time. I'm sure I'll play some 1e again in the future.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Did I say that the poll was statistically valid?  Did I say that the sample size was sufficient to make marketing decisions?
> 
> No.  I merely made an observation.
> 
> If- and that's a _big_ if- numbers like the poll's hold up over time, that would be bad news for WotC.



There have been a lot of polls on some version of this nature.
55% - 60% for 4E seems to be a consistent range.

A lot higher than what I'm seeing in meatspace....


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 12, 2008)

The results of this poll surprised me.  I expected a much different shape of graph.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 12, 2008)

Roland55 said:


> I don't 'change over.'  When a new Edition comes along, I see it as a whole new game.  If I like it, I add it to the list of games I play.




I was contemplating saying the exact same thing in my first post.  Using the term 'change over' implies a degree of booleanness that I just don't find is necessary.

There's no more mutual exclusion between 3.5 & 4e than there is between any edition of D&D and Settlers of Catan.
-blarg


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 12, 2008)

Old School for life, dawg.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 12, 2008)

It’s very strange to me that the results on the ends have gotten the most votes and the ones in the middle the least.

While I’m sure there are some people that might not enjoy it, I heartily recommend mixing it up and playing a lot of different games/editions. That way you get to enjoy the good bits of all the games/editions and get a break from the bad parts of each one.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2008)

Funnily enough, had you asked me a month after 3e came out, I would have answered EXACTLY the same at now - still playing 2e and haven't tried 3e.

Do this poll a year from now and see what happens.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 12, 2008)

It's still early;  we have only 198 votes so far.  There are a lot more posters on ENWorld than 198, so only a fraction of our posters have voted.
  When the vote count gets (if the vote count gets) up closer to 1,000, then I'll start considering the poll results.
  If I were to obtain several thousand responses, I could definitely say that this was how the posters ENWorld were gaming (but not all Gamers, obviously) were gaming.  (There are several thousand posters on ENWorld, at least!  : )  )

  I really do hope people will vote in the poll.  I am sincerely curious as to what people are playing.

  Because right now I would definitely call the results extremely preliminary.

  Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 12, 2008)

So, you know, just vote, if you want to.  You don't have to post in the thread.
  There isn't anything to discuss (other than the poll, and it's just a poll ... and polls aren't much worth discussing.)

  I'll periodically bump this thread up, if nobody posts here, so that it remains available for people to vote on, if they desire to.


----------



## Griego (Jul 12, 2008)

Still playing 3.5, will probably switch to 4e once the current set of characters retire. Not sure where that fits in the poll, so I didn't vote.


----------



## pweent (Jul 12, 2008)

There are so many options in this poll, and still so little room for nuance.

Right now? I'm playing 4e exclusively. In a month or so, we'll wrap up our 4e test game, and I'll resume running my 3.5 campaign. When that finishes, we'll probably be more or less exclusively 4e, but that's end of 2009 most likely.

My heart has converted to 4e. My game, however, is still solidly in 3.5.


----------



## Pinotage (Jul 12, 2008)

Slight Changeover. I've given 4e a few combat tries, but I'm still 100% on 3.5e at the moment. I am planning on running Keep on the Shadowfell at some point in the future, though. Still, for the next year at least it'll be mostly 3.5e.

Pinotage


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 12, 2008)

* If you have yet to start playing 4E, but *intend* to play 4E ... *
  * ... just vote No Change:  Haven't tried 4E, all earlier editions play. *

  We see, in a year maybe, how this particular category changes, as more people try 4E.  (Remember, this is merely a poll about whether you *currently* play 4E and/or how much 4E you play.)

  EDIT:

  Remember that this is not a poll about whether you are rejecting 4E or embracing 4E (that would be an Edition Wars thread, and that is not allowed as per the ENWorld rules.)
  This is *only* a poll on whether you have tried 4E, are playing 4E, and how much you are playing 4E.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 12, 2008)

207 votes, and climbing.  
  Cheers.  It's getting better all the time.  : )


----------



## Henrix (Jul 12, 2008)

We're still mostly playing 3.5 - two campaigns are near finishing, so we won't change them, but the ones' that'll follow will be 4e - and I'm running a short 4e campaign to let us learn the ropes before we convert our third main campaign.

So if you ask again in a couple of months you'll get a different answer!


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough, had you asked me a month after 3e came out, I would have answered EXACTLY the same at now - still playing 2e and haven't tried 3e.



There certainly would have been a few individual votes that way.  I find it inconceivable that the proportions would have been anywhere near the same.



> Do this poll a year from now and see what happens.



 Yeah, once the new shiny wears off, its all down hill from here.


----------



## Bluenose (Jul 12, 2008)

We're finishing up our 3.5 campaign, and then we'll play 4E seriously. So far, it's just been a few encounters to see how they run.

As it happens, I'm fairly tired of fantasy games in general at the moment. I'm hoping to get something else running, either with RTT or SWSE. So 4E might be a bit delayed.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2008)

BryonD said:


> There certainly would have been a few individual votes that way.  I find it inconceivable that the proportions would have been anywhere near the same.



Why?



> Yeah, once the new shiny wears off, its all down hill from here.



Depends on perspective, I suppose. I think it will go up hill from here, but also think we will both be right, assuming certain perspectives...


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 12, 2008)

Couldn't answer the poll since I'm not playing 4e or earlier editions.

A game, a game, my kingdom for a game.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Jul 12, 2008)

Well, I'm going to run as an ENnies judge again this year, so I'll be playing a fair bit of everything if that happens.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 12, 2008)

Magic 8-ball says chances are poor for me switching to 4th from my current frankenstein 3e/3.5 chimera. The rest of my group and another campaign I'm in are trending the same direction.

Pathfinder will get a serious look for any new games started after the current ones, but 4th probably won't be considered as a serious option given the play styles involved, among other reasons. Not the system for me.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 12, 2008)

Tried 4e, didn't like, didn't buy. Off dnd for the moment. Waiting for 4.5 or whatever call it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Couldn't answer the poll since I'm not playing 4e or earlier editions.
> 
> A game, a game, my kingdom for a game.




You have a kingdom? I suppose you only want to turn it in for a game because you fear a rebellion or something coming, eh? You won't trick me...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2008)

BryonD said:


> There certainly would have been a few individual votes that way.  I find it inconceivable that the proportions would have been anywhere near the same.
> 
> Yeah, once the new shiny wears off, its all down hill from here.




As Mustrum Rid asks, why?  Is it so hard to believe that 3e outside of people who were following the development online didn't even register to a lot of people?  Considering how much smaller the online community was back then, and readership of Dragon was at an all time low, there were loads of people who hadn't even heard of 3e when it released.

And, even after release, there were also quite a few people who were perfectly content with their 2e or 1e games.

Sure, you could be right.  A year from now, there could be this stark gulf where everyone goes back to 3e, or perhaps to Paizo in droves.  Time will tell.  

((Goes off to bookmark this thread for threadomancy in a year's time.))


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2008)

Hussar said:


> As Mustrum Rid asks, why?  Is it so hard to believe that 3e outside of people who were following the development online didn't even register to a lot of people?  Considering how much smaller the online community was back then, and readership of Dragon was at an all time low, there were loads of people who hadn't even heard of 3e when it released.



  My personal experience, along with the experiences related to me by a vast number of people.  Seriously, it goes way beyond anecdote.  I don't doubt for a second that there were people that stayed.  But I would have been hard pressed to find 1 in 30 that wanted to stay, far far less 1 in 3.

Heck, I thought it was simply an accepted fact that part of the reason 3E generated such a boom in interest was how the market as a whole was done with 2E.  Does that mean that there were no exceptions?  Of course not.  



> And, even after release, there were also quite a few people who were perfectly content with their 2e or 1e games.



 Agreed.  Lots.  Just not 1 in 3.



> Sure, you could be right.  A year from now, there could be this stark gulf where everyone goes back to 3e, or perhaps to Paizo in droves.  Time will tell.
> 
> ((Goes off to bookmark this thread for threadomancy in a year's time.))



Didn't make either of those claims.  You implied that the current numbers are due to people who will switch simply have not done so yet.  I disputed that view.  As I said, the new shiny will only wear off.  That doesn't mean there will be stark gulfs or droves of PF converts.  I just suspect the numbers won't improve.

I'll also note that it is funny how the goal posts move.  Three months ago we were still getting all this "You can't judge the game, you haven't seen enough of it yet."  Then, when it comes out and is exactly what was expected, that turns into "You have to give it a year."  I guess soon we will be told that it really isn't fair to make judgments until PH3 is released.


----------



## Phlebas (Jul 12, 2008)

I can't help thinking that in a years time the most common response will be "playing some 4e, some 3.x and some other games"


----------



## primarchone (Jul 12, 2008)

Hi!

I'm somewhat amused by internet polls regarding D&D and the conclusion some would like to derive from them.

The reality is that such polls are statistically meaningless. Why? 

People whom play D&D AND post thier opinions about it are a VERY small minority of the player base.

How to know this? 

I tried an interesting exercise where I went to all the main sites and looked up the number of members.

Enworld has around 71,812 members. WOTC boards have 362,643 and rpgnet has 53,318. This totals around 487773. Let double than number to include every single D&D forum on the net (a gross overestimation since, besides the three sites mentions all others have orders of magnitud less members), and round it to an even one million.

According to what I have seen posted here by and mentioned by the media there are around 20 million D&D players worldwide. 

That means that even with my overestimated 1 million that is a paultry 5% of the consumer base.

Now, if we took just ACTIVE members (which after all will be the ones expressing an opinion and voting on polls) that number is even lower, since the WOTC boards places that number around 48,000 (About 1/6 the total membership). If we were to apply this to the total overestimated number then we'd have 166,666.

Also, we know that many active posters not only have an account on one site by probably all three of the main sites (3), but lets split the difference and say some only have to 1 or 2 and divide the 166,666 by 2. Thats 83,333 active posters for D&D. Thats a whopping 0.4% (approximately) of the total player base.

Given that most polls here show about 60% for 4e and 40% against that would mean 0.24% pro 4E and 0.16% against of the player base.

While we all like and enjoy posting our opinions on the net (it is a fun after all), but we must keep in mind that it is a TINY fraction of all those whom play D&D and no position (for or against) may be representative of the base at large.

Personally, the only objective paramter I use for how any game is doing is sales. IF sales are good and continue to be good then the game is doing well.

As of today 4E is doing well in this department (very well according to WOTC), if time passes and continues to do well, then that answers the overall question of the lines success.

Primarchone


----------



## Turjan (Jul 12, 2008)

RFisher said:


> It’s very strange to me that the results on the ends have gotten the most votes and the ones in the middle the least.
> 
> While I’m sure there are some people that might not enjoy it, I heartily recommend mixing it up and playing a lot of different games/editions. That way you get to enjoy the good bits of all the games/editions and get a break from the bad parts of each one.



I like your sentiment, but in my personal experience, I tend to mix up rules of games that are too similar. That's why, for purely practical reasons, I try to avoid playing several editions at the same time. Perhaps, other people have similar problems. Or, even simpler, they don't have more gaming time than for one campaign.


Hussar said:


> Funnily enough, had you asked me a month after 3e came out, I would have answered EXACTLY the same at now - still playing 2e and haven't tried 3e.
> 
> Do this poll a year from now and see what happens.



That's how I see it, too. Many people are still deep in 3.x campaigns and may change over to 4e when they will have wrapped those up. Or not .


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 12, 2008)

primarchone said:


> I tried an interesting exercise where I went to all the main sites and looked up the number of members.
> 
> Enworld has around 71,812 members. WOTC boards have 362,643 and rpgnet has 53,318. This totals around 487773. Let double than number to include every single D&D forum on the net (a gross overestimation since, besides the three sites mentions all others have orders of magnitud less members), and round it to an even one million.
> 
> According to what I have seen posted here by and mentioned by the media there are around 20 million D&D players worldwide.




When looking for trends, you don't have to survey a large fraction of the market to find out statistical trends. For instance, when figuring out the Nielson ratings, they make their projections based on a small random sampling of TV watching population. Studies have found that when you do this, results tend to be accurate within a small percentage (1% - 5% if I remember right). So, that means that to obtain a statistically accurate trend on this, you could survey about a thousand people and get some accurate percentages. Obviously this poll hasn't come close to hitting that mark, so the jury is still out.

I do agree with you about one thing, however. People who post to messageboards are not necessarily representative of the gaming public at large. We tend to be better informed about products, more active as players, and more fickle when it comes to products. For that reason alone, this poll might have no bearing whatsoever on the actual reality of the situation.

Now, speaking anecdotally, the trends of this poll do match what I've been seeing locally. Roughly half the people I talk to have or will switch to 4E while the other half want to stick with some form of 3.5. Even my own group is split down the middle, and one of my players likes to run games, so he'll probably end up running an occasional 4th edition game that I will play in while I run the primary Pathfinder game.



> Personally, the only objective paramter I use for how any game is doing is sales. IF sales are good and continue to be good then the game is doing well.
> 
> As of today 4E is doing well in this department (very well according to WOTC), if time passes and continues to do well, then that answers the overall question of the lines success.




Sales aren't an objective parameter for judging the success of a product unless you happen to work for the company. If you ask any company how their product is doing, they will always tell you that it's performing at or above expectations when the reality might be anything but that. The biggest way to kill your existing line is to either admit that it is performing poorly or to announce that you will end support for it. On the other hand, if you go out there and rave about how well it's doing, you might be able to increase sales through your own hype. It's all marketing. With 4E, we are led to believe that the core books have sold out, but we really have no idea what the actual numbers on the print run were or how that compares to previous editions. Right now it could be the best selling edition of D&D ever, it could be the worst, but most likely it falls somewhere in between.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Jul 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I do agree with you about one thing, however. People who post to messageboards are not necessarily representative of the gaming public at large. We tend to be better informed about products, more active as players, and more fickle when it comes to products. For that reason alone, this poll might have no bearing whatsoever on the actual reality of the situation.




... or it might have more bearing.

It's definitely true that ENWorld forum readers probably don't represent the D&D player community at large. However, I would suggest that they are rather important, since D&D is a game that's expanded almost entirely by word of mouth. I suspect that very few people get into D&D, or role-playing in general, by going and buying RPG books on spec. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people got into D&D because they were invited to join an existing gaming group, they enjoyed the experience and decided to keep playing.

ENWorld comprises the kind of people who start gaming groups and actively expand the hobby. Within the gaming realm, I guess they're what would be called "opinion leaders". As such, their opinion is actually pretty important. (And so far, that opinion appears to be split right down the middle.)


----------



## thalmin (Jul 13, 2008)

Total changeover for now. After playing for a while will reevaluate, but expect change to be permanent.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 13, 2008)

RFisher said:


> It’s very strange to me that the results on the ends have gotten the most votes and the ones in the middle the least.




Naw, not really here.  We're all dorks and nerds.  What are we gonna do except purposefully be as polarizing as possible to prove OUR edition is better then THEIRS?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 13, 2008)

RFisher said:


> It’s very strange to me that the results on the ends have gotten the most votes and the ones in the middle the least.




I think you're a bit silly to be surprised by that. Most D&D players don't have the time or energy to be playing multiple systems, so they go with the one they like, whether it's 4E, 3E, C&C or whatever. It's not some "lol ur system sux" thing, it's just pragmatism. I'd love to play every edition and see the highs and lows, but that'd mean ridiculously more effort from all the people involved, and inevitably, some systems will be less fun for some groups.

For my group, we've switched over to 4E, and we aren't going back in the foreseeable future. The players are having a blast and feeling much more engaged by the way the 4E rules work. It's not for everyone, but I really do think any group of D&D players for whom combat and mayhem is the main objective will enjoy 4E a huge amount (no diss on 4E, but it's SO good at making that more fun for everyone).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 13, 2008)

We have 300 votes now.  Cheers!

  But we need more.  We could easily get 10 times that many votes on this poll, and it only be a fraction of the ENWorld base.  And ENWorld is, as you pointed out, only a part of the D&D base.
  Results are still extremely preliminary.

  Dawg?  Hehe.  : )  (Sings from an old ad:  Here Dawg!  Come on Dawg!  Me and Dawg want ya to go to Te-le-graph Road!  Right now!  Get a good deal!)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 13, 2008)

(bumping this, as promised.  Bump 1)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2008)

ByronD - You are confusing a lot of issues I think.  The whole "Wait until it's out" response was in response to criticisms about mechanical issues.  It had nothing to do with switching over or not.

I highly suspect that there are a number of players who are still playing a campaign and just haven't made the switch.  Same as happened in 3e.  Out of curiousity, I'm going to fork this into my own poll.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 14, 2008)

Turjan said:


> Or, even simpler, they don't have more gaming time than for one campaign.






Ruin Explorer said:


> Most D&D players don't have the time or energy to be playing multiple systems, so they go with the one they like, whether it's 4E, 3E, C&C or whatever. It's not some "lol ur system sux" thing, it's just pragmatism.




I only get to play one night a week†. And that’s Monday night. We all work regular M–F schedules, so we can’t game too late. Plus, some of the group work later shifts, so we usually don’t get started until 8–8:30pm.

Now, I realize that some people only get to game bi-weekly or once-a-month, but I still figure I’m below average for how much gaming time ENWorlders have. But maybe I’m wrong.

I always wonder about these things. I’ve _never_ been in a group that only played one game. Am I and my friends the outliers or typical?

†I actually have just gotten more free time that I can devote to gaming, but that has been my situation for the past eight years.


----------



## Delta (Jul 14, 2008)

primarchone said:


> Given that most polls here show about 60% for 4e and 40% against that would mean 0.24% pro 4E and 0.16% against of the player base.




You misunderstand inferential statistics. This is common. (I'm a part-time statistics professor).

The incredible beauty of the math behind the field of statistics is that -- amazingly -- it doesn't matter how big your population is. The percentage in the sample generally follows the percentage in the population, regardless of the relative sizes between sample & population. That can be a mind-bender for a lot of folks.

For example, our poll is currently over 400 votes. Standard polling "margin of error", at the 95% confidence level, is computed by E = 1/sqrt, where n is the sample size (notice that population size has no effect on this formula). So for our poll you'd calculate E = 1/sqrt(400) ~ 0.05 = 5%. 

In particular, the poll now says that 31% of respondents play all 4E now. Our analysis would say that in the larger population (regardless of how large it is) there is a 95% chance that the percentage of people playing all 4E is within 31+/-5% = between 26% and 36%. So it's an excellent bet that the population percentage is within that fairly narrow range.

Look closely the next time you see a political tracking poll. They usually poll right around 400 people (for that margin of error = 5%), even though they're making inferences for a voting population in the hundreds of millions.

Now, there are other legitimate critiques that can be made about our poll. It is in fact likely to be biased and reflect the opinion of people who attend ENWorld and like to vote in polls on the issue of 4E, for example.

But that's a separate, distinct criticism. The issue that we've got 300 votes and the larger population is in the millions has actually been proven to be a non-issue by the mathematics of inferential statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 14, 2008)

No earlier versions of D&D but I would still consider OGL games like M&M and Arcana Evolved.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2008)

> That means that even with my overestimated 1 million that is a paultry 5% of the consumer base.




Well, if you really look at RW stat collecting and the math behind it...

Oh wait- Delta said it all, and infinitely better than I could have!


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 14, 2008)

When 3e came out, I waited about 6 months before I tried to run or play it.  We were still having fun with 2e, and after a readthrough of 3e, there was enough I didn't like I put it on the shelf for a while.  After about 6 months, my players decided they wanted to try it for a while, so I ran it for about 3 years (and I played some).  We all found gameplay in 3e unsatisfying after trying to make 3e fit with our gaming preferences, and we dropped it completely about 6 months after 3.5 came out.  We mostly went back to 1e/2e, Savage Worlds, and WHFRP2.

With 4e, we got on board when it came out.  For me and my group, 4e is leaps and bounds better than 3e, and I'd never go back to 3e.  I looked at Pathfinder too, but they exacerbated all of problems I had with 3e, and then added more problems- no thanks.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 14, 2008)

(bumps this up)

  We have 350 votes.  Need more.  
  Hey, ENWorld has 76,000 posters.  Would never consider 350 votes to represent ENWorld!  : )


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I highly suspect that there are a number of players who are still playing a campaign and just haven't made the switch.



Exactly. I won't switch in mid-campaign, so it's at least another year before I'll start playing 4E.

That I will switch at some point is practically a given.

I don't have the time, btw. to play both editions at the same time. I'm glad if we manage to have a D&D session every 3-4 weeks. I might be able to participate in the occasional one-shot, but that's about it.


----------



## haakon1 (Jul 14, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Yeah, I'm sure a poll on an internet forum featuring less than 70 votes is a real nail-biter for them.




Essentially consistent results from about a dozen polls on the biggest website where your product is discussed might be worth thinking about.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jul 14, 2008)

Delta said:


> You misunderstand inferential statistics. This is common. (I'm a part-time statistics professor).
> 
> The incredible beauty of the math behind the field of statistics is that it -- amazingly -- doesn't matter how big your population is. The percentage in the sample generally follows the percentage in the population, regardless of the relative sizes between sample & population. That can be a mind-bender for a lot of folks.
> 
> ...



Taking the above into account, I'm pretty surprised by the results of this poll so far.  The percentage of those not changing over at all is far higher than I had expected to see.  I know that there are those who are sticking with an older edition (I'm one of them) but to see 43% voting for "No Change" is a much bigger proportion than I had thought was the case.

I remember anecdotal tales that TSR lost around 50% of its customers when it shifted from 1e to 2e, but I was always skeptical of those figures.  Now... not so much.  I find it hard to believe that WotC didn't take this kind of reluctance to adopt 4e into account, given all the market research they did for 4e (or said they did, anyhow) so it seems clear that they are banking on drawing in a huge number of new players to replace those who are not making the change to 4e.  It will be interesting to see how that marketing campaign plays out when it starts later this year.  I recall that the plan was to get current gamers to shift over in the early phase of 4e (ie. now) and get new players later.  I doubt that WotC would be happy with only snagging 50% to 60% of their current customer base, so they must have something pretty hefty in the works for attracting new players.

Very interesting perspective, Delta.  Really casts the reliabilty of such polls in a new light for me.  Here's hoping that this poll continues to draw attention... and votes!


----------



## Cpt_Micha (Jul 14, 2008)

Complete change over to fourth edition here. After Keep on the Shadowfell there was and is no going back for us.


----------



## Delta (Jul 14, 2008)

Mark Hope said:


> Very interesting perspective, Delta. Really casts the reliabilty of such polls in a new light for me. Here's hoping that this poll continues to draw attention... and votes!




Mark, thanks for saying that. I'm walking around all day thinking of how best to explain this stuff anyway (and noodling in graduate statistics texts), so I see a thread like this and it all comes spilling out.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 15, 2008)

Mark Hope said:


> Taking the above into account, I'm pretty surprised by the results of this poll so far.  The percentage of those not changing over at all is far higher than I had expected to see.  I know that there are those who are sticking with an older edition (I'm one of them) but to see 43% voting for "No Change" is a much bigger proportion than I had thought was the case.




Unless I'm badly misreading the poll, it's about what people have already done -- less than six weeks after the launch of 4e -- not their long-term plans. My tabletop group was four months into a 3.5 game, and WotC's official policy is that it's better to start a new 4e game than convert. We'll certainly wrap that game up before we do anything with 4e, but I suspect there's enough interest to at least try it at some point (we moved to 3.5 gradually, running a 3.0 + XPH '3.25' game for a while before moving to 3.5 entirely).

If it's up to me -- and my opinion of the game doesn't change after actually playing it and/or running it at a tabletop -- we'll move eventually. Just not right now.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jul 15, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Unless I'm badly misreading the poll, it's about what people have already done -- less than six weeks after the launch of 4e -- not their long-term plans. My tabletop group was four months into a 3.5 game, and WotC's official policy is that it's better to start a new 4e game than convert. We'll certainly wrap that game up before we do anything with 4e, but I suspect there's enough interest to at least try it at some point (we moved to 3.5 gradually, running a 3.0 + XPH '3.25' game for a while before moving to 3.5 entirely).
> 
> If it's up to me -- and my opinion of the game doesn't change after actually playing it and/or running it at a tabletop -- we'll move eventually. Just not right now.




I agree - it's early days yet.  Very early days.  I was just struck by the numbers.  A year from now and another poll like this would make for some interesting reading.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 15, 2008)

Haven't gotten a copy of 4E yet. So my current game of B/X is going ahead as planned (ie: slowly - we are mostly playing CyberPunk 2020 and Scion right now)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2008)

Well, we're approaching the 400 mark, but we have a ways to go yet.  Need a thousand replies, really, before I at least give the poll credence.

  I will admit, that the 43% to 43% split, with 16% in 'the middle', has been holding pretty steady since the poll started.

  Vote in the poll!  By all means, let's get the numbers up.  This is ENWorld.  We can get the vote number over 1,000!


----------



## WereSteve (Jul 15, 2008)

sjmiller said:


> I voted that we have not played 4e and are going to be playing an earlier edition. I read through 4e and found I did not like it and would not run it. A couple of others have skimmed 4e and none of them are interested. Since I am the only one willing to run a game right now, that means we will not be moving to 4e.




Similar situation to what my group is going through now, only the group consensus wound up being to revert back to 2.5e Skills & Powers for a change of pace.  From what I have observed, this will be the second long running group that I have been a part of to hop in the Wayback Machine and return to 1995.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 15, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Well, we're approaching the 400 mark, but we have a ways to go yet.  Need a thousand replies, really, before I at least give the poll credence.
> 
> I will admit, that the 43% to 43% split, with 16% in 'the middle', has been holding pretty steady since the poll started.
> 
> Vote in the poll!  By all means, let's get the numbers up.  This is ENWorld.  We can get the vote number over 1,000!



1000?  When was the last time that's happened around here?  I don't remember seeing a poll with numbers that high.

This thing is already as credible as it's ever going to be, what with the site self selection and sock puppets.  I'd be interested in seeing one of these run every month or two and the results collected into a graph.  Can you run similar polls over at TBP or TheRPGSite?

Sam


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 15, 2008)

After about 3 seconds of perusing 4e, I started thinking that gnawing my own leg off might be a more better way to spend my time. More...more better...


----------



## hewligan (Jul 15, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> Can you run similar polls over at TBP or TheRPGSite?




This, I think, would be interesting. I know from other forums I visit that ENWorld has been seen as quite pro-4e, and I would guess that the forums at TBP, Paizo, RPG.net, etc. would show quite different results.

One could imagine that some anti-4e people have pretty much left ENWorld and moved elsewhere, and some pro-4e people have moved here. That, of course, could skew the poll. The only way to know would be to post an identically worded poll on the other sites and see how it goes.

My guess: On RPG.net the numbers moving to 4e would be a few percent smaller. On Paizo.com they would be a lot smaller. The reason is that our community does tend to migrate towards those sites that contain people with similar views to their own.

Just an opinion.


----------



## Psion (Jul 15, 2008)

hewligan said:


> This, I think, would be interesting. I know from other forums I visit that ENWorld has been seen as quite pro-4e, and I would guess that the forums at TBP, Paizo, RPG.net, etc. would show quite different results.




What do you mean by TBP* if you don't mean RPGnet? (Er, I guess you didn't know that's what Samuel Lemming meant, because he wasn't redundant.)



> On RPG.net the numbers moving to 4e would be a few percent smaller.




Oh, no. TBP (d20 forum, at least) is painfully more pro-4e than ENWorld is. TheRPGSite, on the other hand, is painfully more pre-4e (and pre-3e, for that matter.)

If you want to hit the full spectrum, try Paizo and NG, which are more anti-4e.

* TBP = the big purple.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 15, 2008)

Psion said:


> Oh, no. TBP (d20 forum, at least) is painfully more pro-4e than ENWorld is. TheRPGSite, on the other hand, is painfully more pre-4e (and pre-3e, for that matter.)
> 
> If you want to hit the full spectrum, try Paizo and NG, which are more anti-4e.




It is interesting to see how the various boards are reacting.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 17, 2008)

(in an announcer's voice)  This is a poll of the ENWorld broadcasting system.  This is only a poll.  : )

  Not interested in other boards or who likes what edition.
  Just want to know if you've changed over and/or how much you've changed over.

  Hey, if we can't get 1,000, let's try for 500.  We can do at least that much!


----------



## vazanar (Jul 17, 2008)

RFisher said:


> It’s very strange to me that the results on the ends have gotten the most votes and the ones in the middle the least.
> 
> While I’m sure there are some people that might not enjoy it, I heartily recommend mixing it up and playing a lot of different games/editions. That way you get to enjoy the good bits of all the games/editions and get a break from the bad parts of each one.




In theory, this is a great idea and for some groups it might work. I know my more casual gamers (more rp less rules) would be frustrated switching so much. Combined with other rule games (warmachine, twilight imperium etc) it's just a little to much for a group who meets 2-3 times a month (cept summer). We also have at least one person missing most sessions which just adds to the fun.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 18, 2008)

vazanar said:


> I know my more casual gamers (more rp less rules) would be frustrated switching so much.




() The “more rp less rules” people in my group are exactly the ones who care _least_ what system we play. When you’re not paying attention to the rules anyway, why would you care?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 19, 2008)

Ok then.  Never got to 500 votes, but it looks like this poll is pretty well maxed out.

  The Results, as of July 19th, 2008 :

  42% Changeover
  13% Partial Changeover
  45% No Changeover

  I'll come back in a year, and try this poll again.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 19, 2008)

The number that i find the most telling, for good or bad, depending on your point of view is the %17 percent who tried it and decided to stick with an older edition.  It will be interesting to see what these numbers are like in the future.  I think doing it again 6 months from now and then 12 months afterwards would be more interesting then waiting a whole year.


----------



## Sammael (Jul 19, 2008)

I voted for the next to last option - "No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play." I did try 4E at the 4E Game Day; I also bought the core books. I am going to cannibalize them for my 3.75 game, but I have no intention of running 4E in the future.

Anecdotally, here's the deal with my 2 groups:

Group 1 (6 players): Mildly interested in trying 4E as an exercise, none have any intention of buying the books. One player (also an avid WoW player) tried 4E and said it was eerily similar to WoW, and that he was disturbed when he saw MMORPG constructs and terminology used in a PnP game. Another player asked me explicitly to continue running 3.5 after reading a bit of 4E.

Group 2 (3 players): Expressed horror, shock, disbelief, and disgust over 4E. Never want to switch.

Anecdotal, I know. Just felt like sharing.


----------



## Xyxox (Jul 19, 2008)

I've never played and am sticking to 2E for now.

IF they ever get DDI fully functional, I'll be all in and will buy two copies of everything (one hard copy, one soft copy). 4E looks to me best suited for online play and going online will allow me much more play time than on my tabletop.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jul 19, 2008)

Well, despite owning a ton of books and playing in a number of games, I never really liked 3.5 all that much.  I did like 3rd edition for changing the AC and save systems, giving a ton of new options for character builds, and removing the racial character level limits while still making the humans a good option for play.

I certainly don't like what I've read with the hit point and power bumps of characters in either Pathfinder or 4E or what they have done to the wizard in 4E.  I will likely expand my collection with Castles and Crusades with ideas from 3.5 and OGL sources while also playing with my BECMI books and modules.


----------



## Chauzu (Jul 19, 2008)

I am now fully converted to 4e... but I still have my 3e PHB just in case.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2008)

Its around a month or so since the game's release date, and with 481 votes, we're now running 45.33% against 4Ed.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 24, 2008)

There was a last minute surge of votes, so I must correct the stats.

  As of late July, 2008, the Results:

  41% Changeover
  13% Partial Changeover
  46% No Changeover


----------



## jonesy (Jul 24, 2008)

OD&D mostly, some 3.5, lots of other rpgs, but so far we've played only one 4th edition game. It might be good, but it's too early to say.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 24, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> There was a last minute surge of votes, so I must correct the stats.
> 
> As of late July, 2008, the Results:
> 
> ...





Interesting.  Almost the exact same numbers as the current presidential race.  Hhhmmmmmm.  (Just Joking)

If the promise and potential of DDI is realized, I would expect the numbers of people "Changing Over" to increase.  If DDI tanks, I would expect a large percentage to go back to earlier editions.  I'd be interested in knowing (both now and a year from now), how many people, whether they play 4E or not, will still play earlier edition games.  Only time will tell.


----------



## jadrax (Jul 24, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its around a month or so since the game's release date, and with 481 votes, we're now running 45.33% against 4Ed.




Or put another way, by the figures in the poll, 75.13% of people who try 4th edition continue to play it to some extent.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 24, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> If the promise and potential of DDI is realized, I would expect the numbers of people "Changing Over" to increase.  If DDI tanks, I would expect a large percentage to go back to earlier editions.



I tend to doubt that DDI will have that big of an impact either way.

I particularly don't think that people who like it now will revert to an older addition without the DDI.  If they are happy without now, then *no change* will leave them in the same happy place.

I can see the potential that the DDI could have a positive sway.  But I'm doubtful of any real significance on that side either.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 25, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Yeah, I'm sure a poll on an internet forum featuring less than 70 votes is a real nail-biter for them.




Well, whether or not online polls have validity is debatable.....I've heard arguments both ways.  At least this one has a more significant number of responses at this point....and the numbers are remaining fairly stable.....and they seem rather consistent with polls at other websites.....even reviews at Amazon, which seem mixed regarding the new edition.

My completely unscientific, anecdotal observation is that the owner of my FLGS has mentioned his client base has been split in half, with respect to who's buying into the new edition, and who isn't.  That owner has several locations.  I know the owner of another location, and both he, and customers he was talking to, seemed very down on the new edition.

Maybe other stores are different....again, it's anecdotal. It's interesting, though, that so many different sources seem to refer to the split.  Maybe the numbers aren't quite correct, and maybe it won't be a longterm trend, but it might be relatively true, at least now.

Or maybe there's a minority of passionate fans who talk about the game online, and post on Amazon, or on Chapters or whatever, and they are split, and a much larger group of consumers who are buying the books, and might not reflect the same percentages.  But then, I'd think that what I'd be hearing from my local shops would be all positive, and it's not.

I've made my feelings known in other forums here, so I'll admit that I'm likely biased.  But the point of this post is simply to say that just because criticism or praise is on an online poll does not mean it's invalid, or even inaccurate.....by the same token, it can very easily be flawed.

I think we'll all have a more accurate sign in a year.  If Pathfinder and True20 don't become true competitors or alternate options, then many people who didn't want to switch may eventually give in.  That would likely be true as the supply of 3.0/3.5 products dries up.  Or maybe future products will make the game more palatable to those who have held off so far.  Or maybe Pathfinder will eventually become a valid Option#2.  Or True20.  Or some as yet unnamed 3rd party product.  Or consumers might move onto alternate non D20, non-4E products by other companies.  It's too early to tell.  The game's been out, what, two months?

Banshee


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 25, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Or maybe there's a minority of passionate fans who talk about the game online, and post on Amazon, or on Chapters or whatever, and they are split, and a much larger group of consumers who are buying the books, and might not reflect the same percentages.  But then, I'd think that what I'd be hearing from my local shops would be all positive, and it's not.



My own theory (and by theory, I mean wild guess) is that there's an extremely large overlap between people who shop at gaming stores and people who vote in polls on sites like ENWorld.  I imagine that Joe Sixpack goes to Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc. buys the books, and is on his merry way.  He probably doesn't even know that his LGS exists.

In that respect I'd expect Amazon to be a bit more representative, but at the same time, there's the question of use versus contribution.  I mean, consider how many people _use_ Wikipedia versus how many actually write and edit articles.  Same deal, I figure.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jul 25, 2008)

I voted no change.  I haven't played 4E yet but I probably will some time in the next 6-12 months.

I'm currently running my group through the Shackled City AP.  We're 12 sessions in and at our current rate it will take over 60 sessions before we're finished.  That means that our group will still be playing 3.5E for the next year or two.

I don't have the time to run one campaign and play in another so I imagine I will be playing 3.5E almost exclusively until the end of next year.  We'll probably switch over to 4E at that point but that's a long way away so I'll wait and see what happens in the meantime.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 25, 2008)

jadrax said:


> Or put another way, by the figures in the poll, 75.13% of people who try 4th edition continue to play it to some extent.




That isn't a bad retention rate, but it has some serious caveats.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 25, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> My own theory (and by theory, I mean wild guess) is that there's an extremely large overlap between people who shop at gaming stores and people who vote in polls on sites like ENWorld.  I imagine that Joe Sixpack goes to Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc. buys the books, and is on his merry way.  He probably doesn't even know that his LGS exists.
> 
> In that respect I'd expect Amazon to be a bit more representative, but at the same time, there's the question of use versus contribution.  I mean, consider how many people _use_ Wikipedia versus how many actually write and edit articles.  Same deal, I figure.



I think there is some degree of accuracy there.

Of course, I also think that to the extent it is right, the people represented by ENWorld and the LGS are the ones that buy bookshelves full of supplements, unlike most Joe Sixpacks.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 25, 2008)

BryonD said:


> I think there is some degree of accuracy there.
> 
> Of course, I also think that to the extent it is right, the people represented by ENWorld and the LGS are the ones that buy bookshelves full of supplements, unlike most Joe Sixpacks.




Who is Joe Sixpack?

Banshee


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 25, 2008)

Good heavens.  Another 50 votes, in a single day.  And really unexpected, actually.

  The results shift slightly again:

  Time:  Late July, 2008
  Votes:  550

  Changeover:  40%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changover:  46%


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 25, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Who is Joe Sixpack?



"Joe ___" is an American way of referring to an average person - an Average Joe, as it were.  Joe Sixpack usually refers to a blue-collar worker I think, but I've gotten into the habit of using it as a catch-all.  Joe Gamer, Joe Wizard, etc. probably would've been the better choice.

*@Bryon:* I think you're absolutely right in that it's the ENWorlders that are the guys that were grumpy about the 4e announcement because they had _every hardcover produced for 3.X_, but anecdotal experience for me has shown that most people who have (and possibly want) nothing to do with the online community pick up at least a couple of supplements.  While they haven't spent the thousands on D&D that some of the folks around here have, a few hundred here and there certainly adds up.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2008)

> @Bryon: I think you're absolutely right in that it's the ENWorlders that are the guys that were grumpy about the 4e announcement because they had every hardcover produced for 3.X, but anecdotal experience for me has shown that most people who have (and possibly want) nothing to do with the online community pick up at least a couple of supplements. While they haven't spent the thousands on D&D that some of the folks around here have, a few hundred here and there certainly adds up.



I know my name isn't BryonD...

but I'd have to disagree somewhat.  Because of my disposable income, I'm usually kind of "the Librarian" for my game groups.

I had almost every 2Ed supplement out there, and greeted 3Ed with open arms.  I'm quite satisfied with the game, too.

I had no problem with 4Ed's announcement- what I dislike is _4Ed itself_.

In each case, my satisfaction had zero to do with what I had spent.  It was all about the game itself and what I expected to spend on the game in the future.

And as for the second part of the equation, for the most part, the others in my last 3 groups bought almost nothing beyond the PHB or perhaps the Core, if anything at all.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 28, 2008)

(look of surprise)

  So, this poll is hanging around.  562 votes.  The results are holding steady at:

  Changeover:  40%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  46%

  I'm not really expecting that to change, at this point, unless several hundred people come crashing the poll.  And that's not likely.


----------



## Crossroads (Jul 28, 2008)

Earlier editions for me.

I dropped WoTC after the announcement of 3.5.

ODD is currently my game of choice.


----------



## FallenTabris (Jul 28, 2008)

I have whole heartedly changed over to 4e.  I abandoned 3.x D&D for other things like running World of Darkness rpgs or playing Warmachine miniatures.  Currently I run a 4e campaign for my friends and if anyone offered to run 3.5 D&D instead I'd opt out of the group.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 29, 2008)

20 additional votes. 
  No change in the pattern of results.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 30, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> "*@Bryon:* I think you're absolutely right in that it's the ENWorlders that are the guys that were grumpy about the 4e announcement because they had _every hardcover produced for 3.X_, but anecdotal experience for me has shown that most people who have (and possibly want) nothing to do with the online community pick up at least a couple of supplements.  While they haven't spent the thousands on D&D that some of the folks around here have, a few hundred here and there certainly adds up.



I absolutely agree that those people exist.
I would absolutely disagree with any claim that they are at all typical


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 31, 2008)

(bumps this, probably for the last time, hoping to get over 600 votes)


----------



## resistor (Jul 31, 2008)

jadrax said:


> Or put another way, by the figures in the poll, 75.13% of people who try 4th edition continue to play it to some extent.




I'm not sure that's a useful statistic.  To use myself as an example, I don't like 4e.  Tried it at the FLGS, didn't like it.  But one of my good friends plans to run an "intro" game that I'll probably play in just because I like to have fun with my friends.  But I have no intention of buying the books or ever running it by choice.  And yet I'd be considered a pro-4e'er in your statistic.

Not that the other approach is necessarily more meaningful, of course.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2008)

Actually, both provide a company with valuable insight.

A 40+% non-adoption lets the company know that there is an issue in their target market, and lets them ask the right questions about how they can change things.

The 70+% retention rate, OTOH, lets the marketing department know that one of the best ways to market the product is to get people to try it.  That may mean that it may be cost-effective to provide incentives for LGSs to run demos, or blitz the cons with demos.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 1, 2008)

This is a slight change in the results.  They are now:

  Changeover:  40%
  Partial Changeover:  13%
  No Changeover:  47%


----------



## meomwt (Aug 1, 2008)

4th Edition isn't for us. 

3.5 is working well, and with some tweaks introduced in 4E (minions, encounter design, trap design), I suspect we will continue for some time. 

PS Over 600 replies now!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 1, 2008)

There has been another change.  I will set forth the current results again:

  Changeover:  39%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  47%


----------



## delericho (Aug 1, 2008)

No change. We're currently playing WFRP.

We will give 4e a try at some point, and then we'll see. My gut feeling is that we won't be going with it in favour of earlier editions, but I might well be wrong about that. When the time comes, I fully intend to give 4e a _fair_ evaluation.


----------



## AtomicPope (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Yeah, I'm sure a poll on an internet forum featuring less than 70 votes is a real nail-biter for them.



I've emailed WotC Marketing with a link to this thread.  You bet they're interested!  We're paying customers!  What we don't buy counts!


Or not


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 2, 2008)

There are still new votes coming in, and there is some hope we can reach the 700 vote mark in this poll.  

  So keep the votes coming in!  Let's make that 700 mark!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 2, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> I've emailed WotC Marketing with a link to this thread.  You bet they're interested!  We're paying customers!  What we don't buy counts!
> 
> 
> Or not




  You didn't actually e-mail this thread to WOTC, I hope.  The sarcasm *was* there, right?


----------



## korjik (Aug 3, 2008)

I voted tried and went back, but I have a couple of qualifiers. First, going back to 3.5 is projected, not current. Second, I am not dead set against 4e.

Right now 4e has the advantage in that my group dosent consider it to be D&D. That may sound backwards, but we just wrapped up 2 campaigns that started in 2000, and are all a little burnt out on D&D, so 4e is a bit of a change in pace. However 4e's design philosophy was to different from what I wanted to make the change permanent. Thing is tho, if WOTC can put out some quality product, I will prolly buy it. We will see. 

Like several others, I am very interested in seeing this poll in a year, to see how things turn out.


----------



## Serendipity (Aug 3, 2008)

Voted:_ No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play_ However to quantify - I've a small group of players, and we're really in the thick of things with the 3.x game we're playing.  I personally have the three 4e core books but they've not as yet seen any use save as an idea mine. 
Nothing against 4e, it's just not what we're playing right now.   It may be a year before we go 4e.  Which would be fine with me, so that I don't have to homebrew basic stuff (bards, druids, half orcs, etc. etc.) on top of running the game and all the creation that goes with that (I run homebrew).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 4, 2008)

(wonders if there is any way to squeeze out the last 35 votes, to get to the 700 mark)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 5, 2008)

There has been another shift.  We aren't to 700 votes yet, but here are the results:

  Changeover:  38%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  48%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 6, 2008)

Well, that's it.  With nearly 700 votes, on August 5th, 2008, it is still:

  38% Changeover
  14% Partial Changeover
  48% No Changeover

  Half and half


----------



## xnosipjpqmhd (Aug 7, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Let's make that 700 mark!



Yay! I was voter 700.





What do I win?


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 7, 2008)

ironregime said:


> Yay! I was voter 700.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




+1 cool point.


----------



## zwyt (Aug 7, 2008)

706 votes and still holding at right about 50/50 on change/no-change, well the poll has passed 700 votes, I would say it might be getting to the point where it matters a bit now.

Charles


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 7, 2008)

zwyt said:


> 706 votes and still holding at right about 50/50 on change/no-change, well the poll has passed 700 votes, I would say it might be getting to the point where it matters a bit now.
> 
> Charles




I was at a Con this last weekend and the 4E switchers were only about 50% there. That number also reflects the number of people I meet in real life at the FLGS who are and are not switching. Many of the people I've spoken to at both places are fairly opinionated on why they are or are not switching. I haven't spoken to anyone who was just doing one or the other because that's what their DM wants to do. I'm of the belief now that the results of this poll are more than just a statistical anomaly, but do in fact reflect reality within about a 5% margin of error.


----------



## Toben the Many (Aug 7, 2008)

Wow. I'm pretty shocked at the numbers. About 50% of the people polled here are not switching? To be fair, I realize that a poll on ENWorld is not the most scientific of samplings. However, I'm simply surprised as all get out at the numbers. I truly thought that people would grumble a little bit but then get over it.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 7, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> About 50% of the people polled here are not switching?



...not switching *yet*.

I, for example, voted 'No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play'.

I bought the books and I'm looking forward to playing 4E. But it's too early to switch. First I've got a 3E campaign to complete (or at least wrap up). I'd also like to see a decent 4E campaign setting first (I don't consider FR to be one). Preferrably I'd also want to have psionic classes right from the start. So, I'm not in a hurry.

It's not as if 3E has suddenly become unplayable just because a new edition was released.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 7, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> It's not as if 3E has suddenly become unplayable just because a new edition was released.




You should tell that to some of the players in my group! 

/M


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> Wow. I'm pretty shocked at the numbers. About 50% of the people polled here are not switching? To be fair, I realize that a poll on ENWorld is not the most scientific of samplings. However, I'm simply surprised as all get out at the numbers. I truly thought that people would grumble a little bit but then get over it.




This attitude of "Just stop grumbling and get over it" is, I suspect, one of the reasons it's still split at 50/50.  People don't like having their opinions marginalized, and both sides are doing it heavily.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 7, 2008)

We have new numbers, so here they are:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  49%


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 7, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> We have new numbers, so here they are:
> 
> Changeover:  37%
> Partial Changeover:  14%
> No Changeover:  49%




You should have set an end date for this poll. If I could "repoll", I would have to vote for Full Changeover - the last DM in my group is already converting, and at the moment this means its either D&D 4 or Torg we're playing. (And we'll see how long Torg will last - It's a bit difficult for our group, since most of the players have basically played all the adventures, and the DM has a habit of switching systems... But I hope he'll keep his eye open for something outside D&D...)


----------



## Evilhalfling (Aug 7, 2008)

Im a special Snowflake. 
Due two baby issues, most of  my group (those without children) switched to M&M, after our 3.5 campaign ended.   I'm starting a 4e game shortly, but its an acknowledged trial period.  I was hoping to have some 3rd party adventures to run... stupid GSL. 

Still have a 3.6 online game, 8 months and continuing.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 7, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> Wow. I'm pretty shocked at the numbers. About 50% of the people polled here are not switching? To be fair, I realize that a poll on ENWorld is not the most scientific of samplings. However, I'm simply surprised as all get out at the numbers. I truly thought that people would grumble a little bit but then get over it.




Since there is an alternative (Pathfinder) to switching, there's really no need to switch to 4E if one is relatively happy with 3.5.  Most of those going 4E seem to have been unhappy with 3.5.


----------



## Phlebas (Aug 7, 2008)

Regardless of the final numbers, i think this poll has proved that their are enough people playing 4E & enough people remaining with 3,xE that this forum (and by that i mean the members) have to find a way of keeping both camps happy rather than assuming that one point of view will eventually dominate.

Also, since this implies that no-one will ever 'win' an edition war maybe (just maybe) we can get on with talking about the games, and not the edition !

(please.....)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 7, 2008)

Personally, as a professed non-switcher, I'm quite surprised by the results- I was expecting 25-33% max not changing over.

And no, I'm not gloating- numbers like that would bode better for the health of the game as a comercial concern, including possible tweeks or all-out revisions in future releases that might make the game more palatable to those like me.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 7, 2008)

(SCREW THIS FORUM LAG !I HAD TYPED A LONG POST AND LOST IT! BAH!)

Oke here is the summed up version:

50% change with only 2 months of the game being out is actually quite good, and consider that their is a 30% that havent tried it yet. SO I bet this poll will be very different in about a year from now.

But then again this is just a forum poll, this is not an actual market survey.  Thank god Paizo doesn't listens to internet poll or else they would be screwed.

(If this seems to snarky, blame it on the forum lag)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 8, 2008)

750 votes!  Cheers!

  Same results, though.

  37% Changeover
  14% Partial Changeover
  49% No Changeover


----------



## BryonD (Aug 8, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> (SCREW THIS FORUM LAG !I HAD TYPED A LONG POST AND LOST IT! BAH!)
> 
> Oke here is the summed up version:
> 
> 50% change with only 2 months of the game being out is actually quite good, and consider that their is a 30% that havent tried it yet. SO I bet this poll will be very different in about a year from now.



There is a whole forked thread about this topic.  If you go digging you can find it.  It has been a couple weeks or so back.



> But then again this is just a forum poll, this is not an actual market survey.  Thank god Paizo doesn't listens to internet poll or else they would be screwed.



Agreed.  Though it seems to stack up fairly well with the overall consensus.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 9, 2008)

(bumps this up, thinking 800 votes is possible)


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2008)

One thing I find interesting is the number of people who tried 4e and decided not to switch.  I wonder if this could account for some of the initial success of the 4e corebook sales.   It will be interesting to see how well 4e does in the long run when looking at these numbers.  I would love to see a poll about purchases of future products for 4e.


----------



## Khairn (Aug 9, 2008)

Imaro said:


> One thing I find interesting is the number of people who tried 4e and decided not to switch.  I wonder if this could account for some of the initial success of the 4e corebook sales.   It will be interesting to see how well 4e does in the long run when looking at these numbers.  I would love to see a poll about purchases of future products for 4e.




I'm really surprised at these numbers as well.  To have that many people try 4E and say "nope ... not for me" is significant.  I know that I'm pissed off with the amount that I spent, now being relegated to gathering dust on my bookshelf.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2008)

Devyn said:


> I'm really surprised at these numbers as well.  To have that many people try 4E and say "nope ... not for me" is significant.  I know that I'm pissed off with the amount that I spent, now being relegated to gathering dust on my bookshelf.




Yeah, I totally empathize... I bought 2 PHB's (along with the DM guide and MM)  thinking this could be a good starting point to get my son into the game...only to find it's not to my groups tatses.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 10, 2008)

72% have tried 4E.  That's more than 7 in 10 gamers who posted to this poll.  Had it been just that, the poll would have indicated that the majority of those polled had either fully or partially converted to 4E.

  But there is that 21% who say they tried 4E, then went back completely to prior editions.
  When you add that in, only 51% are completely with 4E or partially with 4E.
  It is notable, within the poll.  The most notable thing in the poll, really.

  Since some people, as noted, would have changed their vote, consider there to be a margin of error of a couple of percent, obviously.


----------



## RichGreen (Aug 10, 2008)

*partial changeover*

Hi,

I've got two long-running 3.5 campaigns to finish (The Banewarrens & Bastion of Broken Souls), then we're switching to 4e (Parsantium campaign). I'm also going to be running a pulp d20 Modern/Adventure/Thrilling Tales campaign. 

At the moment, I'm playing in a final 3.5 game and also Keep on the Shadowfell. 

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Maggan (Aug 10, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> When you add that in, only 51% are completely with 4E or partially with 4E.
> It is notable, within the poll.  The most notable thing in the poll, really




Three months into the product life cycle, 51 percent of exisiting players migrating and playing the new edition is a stunning success, if one puts credence to polls like this.

/M


----------



## jokamachi (Aug 10, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Did I say that the poll was statistically valid?  Did I say that the sample size was sufficient to make marketing decisions?
> 
> No.  I merely made an observation.
> 
> If- and that's a _big_ if- numbers like the poll's hold up over time, that would be bad news for WotC.




700 votes later, the numbers hold up, and everything Wotc says these days seems overly confident...

Read the reviews for 4e on Amazon. Now compare them to reviews for 3e.

Speaks volumes.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 10, 2008)

Maggan said:


> Three months into the product life cycle, 51 percent of exisiting players migrating and playing the new edition is a stunning success, if one puts credence to polls like this.
> 
> /M





I don't understand.  How is this a stunning success?  I understand the percentage of people switching to 4E is probably about the same as people switching from 2E to 3E in the same time period. But, 49% said they weren't going to switch or tried 4E, said No Thank You, and went back to an older edition (probably mostly 3.xE).  Again, How is that a stunning success?  WoTC just lost 49% of their customer base.  Their decisions have split the market and limited their customer base.  I would imagine, as time goes on, that some of that 49% might still make there way to 4E - But listening to the opinions of those who aren't switching (very strong opinions I might add), I would suspect that it would be a very small percentage.  WoTC has successfully (or unsuccessfully if your WoTC) polarized their customer base.  I don't see how that can ever be thought of, by any metric, a stunning success.


----------



## Derren (Aug 10, 2008)

jokamachi said:


> Read the reviews for 4e on Amazon. Now compare them to reviews for 3e.
> 
> Speaks volumes.




Do you think so? The average reviews of the core books at Amazon is slightly worse than the 3.5E ones (with more votes) and, except for the gift set, the negative reviews outnumber the positive ones similar to the poll result here.
And the 3.0E reviews are much, much better than the 4E ones.

Still, to me that doesn't "speak volumes".


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 10, 2008)

The thing I find most interesting about these polls, comments and opinions of posters on the forum, and comments/reviews on websites such as Amazon, is how polarized the positions are.  People either LOVE 4E, or HATE 4E.  There is almost no middle ground.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember the change from 2E to 3E being so polarized.  Even if the percentage of changeover, at the same amount of time, between 2E to 3E and 3E to 4E is about the same, I think the difference is that people just hadn't invested in or really looked at 3E yet as opposed to such a large amount of people seeing, and even trying 4E and not converting.  Whether the polls are statistically relevent or not, whether oppinions or reviews can really be trusted or are just a very small percentage of customers, it is undeniable that WoTC customer base is Extremely polarized.  The only historical example I can think of, where this kind of customer polarization took place, was when Coke switched formulas (and we all know how that turned out).


----------



## jadrax (Aug 10, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> The only historical example I can think of, where this kind of customer polarization took place, was when Coke switched formulas (and we all know how that turned out).




Things that have equally polarised the Internet.

Every single change in any Online Game.
Every single change in any Comic Book.
Every single change in anything, ever.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 10, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I don't understand.  How is this a stunning success?




The life cycle of an edition is measured in years, and the core books will sell throughout this life cycle. To expect everyone to switch over at once is unrealistic. And having a 51% adoption rate 3 months after release is by any metric a stunning success.

Imagine if Microsoft had achieved a 51% conversion of Windows XP to Windows Vista in three months. Seems impossible? Well, yes, because it is impossible to pull everyone over by flicking a switch. It's a process.

I would be very, very, very surprised if WotC are planning to rope in even 55% of the current players in the first six months, even a year. They probably have a multi-year plan for that.



El Mahdi said:


> WoTC just lost 49% of their customer base.




Did they? 3e sales were stalling, falling, crashing to the ground according to WotC and several third party publishers. 

So does 49% of the people not playing 4e equal 49% of the paying customers that were spending money on 3e at the end? I don't think so.

And don't we also know that gamers will complain until they're blue in the face, and then stick it to the man by ... buying lots of stuff anyway. It's the power of the brand, and it's a tough cookie to ignore.

/M


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 10, 2008)

Okay.  These sound like valid arguments Maggan.  And since I see that you are a real game designer involved with real game companies and publishers, I will defer to your expertise.  (Really.  I'm not being sarcastic.)

However, what about this polarization with customers, and with 3PP?  Did it seem this bad with 2E to 3E (except with 3PP - I don't think there really was a 3PP market until 3E)?  Or do you feel this is a non-issue?  I'm interested in your opinion of this aspect.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 10, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> And since I see that you are a real game designer involved with real game companies and publishers, I will defer to your expertise.




Oooh, dangerous! Dangerous! Thanks for the vote of confidence, but trust me, just because I work part time in the industry, doesn't mean I'm not also just a fan with a chip on my shoulder! 

Case in point: I didn't think WotC would fumble the DDI, having learned a lesson with MasterTools. Boy was I wrong on that!



> However, what about this polarization with customers, and with 3PP? Did it seem this bad with 2E to 3E (except with 3PP - I don't think there really was a 3PP market until 3E)? Or do you feel this is a non-issue? I'm interested in your opinion of this aspect.




3e had another set of circumstances; 2e was waning, had been waning for a long time. And it was so bad at TSR that Dragon and Dungeon had stopped being published for a long time. So people knew how bad it could be, which made it a lot easier to roll out 3e.

Having said that, there are polarisation in regards to everything D&D. It is inherent in the nature of doing edition changes. WFRPv1 and WFRPv2 are in all respects identical games if you compare them to D&D3 and D&D4, and yet that edition change, relaunching a commerically abandoned edition, polarised the community to a certain degree.

It is inevitable that there are strong feelings now, and I remember the strong feelings when 3.5 was released. That blew over, and now 3.5 is the edition that many feel attached to.

It all goes round and round. 

Cheers!

/M


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 10, 2008)

jadrax said:


> Things that have equally polarised the Internet.
> 
> Every single change in any Online Game.
> Every single change in any Comic Book.
> Every single change in anything, ever.



I don't play online games so I have no experience with them, but I somehow find that doubtful.  WoW hasn't lost half of it's users...

As for comic books, the amount of changes they _constantly_ make is rediculous.  If "every single change" they made polarized their customers like this, they would have been out of business LONG ago.  Even with all the retcons they do...



Maggan said:


> The life cycle of an edition is measured in years, and the core books will sell throughout this life cycle. To expect everyone to switch over at once is unrealistic. And having a 51% adoption rate 3 months after release is by any metric a stunning success.



But yet the majority of books are sold within the first 6 months of release.



Maggan said:


> Imagine if Microsoft had achieved a 51% conversion of Windows XP to Windows Vista in three months. Seems impossible? Well, yes, because it is impossible to pull everyone over by flicking a switch. It's a process.



Computers and RPGs are different beasts, but it's funny you should use Vista as a comparison to 4.0.  After all, people have tried it and then switched back...

And I think you forget the days of Windows 95, with people sleeping outside computer stores eager to be the first to have it...



Maggan said:


> I would be very, very, very surprised if WotC are planning to rope in even 55% of the current players in the first six months, even a year. They probably have a multi-year plan for that.



Really?  We must have been reading different previews then.



Maggan said:


> Did they? 3e sales were stalling, falling, crashing to the ground according to WotC and several third party publishers.



Are these "quotes" from before or after 4.0 was announced?  I remember them from after.  I don't recall them from before...



Maggan said:


> And don't we also know that gamers will complain until they're blue in the face, and then stick it to the man by ... buying lots of stuff anyway. It's the power of the brand, and it's a tough cookie to ignore.



True enough.  But I think the constant reminder from people that they are "going to change" will actually keep a lot of those people from changing anytime soon.  I may not be a fan of 4.0, but I still thought it would capture 70-80% of the exisiting base...


----------



## jadrax (Aug 10, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> I don't play online games so I have no experience with them, but I somehow find that doubtful.  WoW hasn't lost half of it's users...
> 
> As for comic books, the amount of changes they _constantly_ make is rediculous.  If "every single change" they made polarized their customers like this, they would have been out of business LONG ago.  Even with all the retcons they do...



Your conclusions would be accurate only if the people that post on internet message boards where in any way a significant proportion of a products customer base.

Honestly, I have seen actual death threats made over changing an Armour Dye from 'Hot Pink' to Red, if there is one thing message boards do it's polarise the people on them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 10, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> I don't play online games so I have no experience with them, but I somehow find that doubtful.  WoW hasn't lost half of it's users...



But WoW users have no choice, if they want to keep playing. 



> As for comic books, the amount of changes they _constantly_ make is rediculous.  If "every single change" they made polarized their customers like this, they would have been out of business LONG ago.  Even with all the retcons they do...



How often can you use a comic book? 
How often can you use the PHB 3.5?



> But yet the majority of books are sold within the first 6 months of release.



In that case - look at how many people have tried it, meaning they must have access to the books? 

How many of those that haven't tried have bought the books and decided to not try after all? Of course, you can ask how many people need the Core Books if they just try it, and how many may have downloaded it... But then I could ask how many people never bought the 3E core rules and relied on the SRD or copies from friends (or pirated copies). 



> True enough.  But I think the constant reminder from people that they are "going to change" will actually keep a lot of those people from changing anytime soon.  I may not be a fan of 4.0, but I still thought it would capture 70-80% of the exisiting base...



Well, what we hope or think might not have any relation to what will actually happen. I have no idea about the "conversion" rate with role playing games. I suspect it's higher then, say, the conversion rate in switch between car models.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 10, 2008)

We have 798 votes, and there has been a change again:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  15%
  No Changeover:  48%

  Remember that if there are 70,000 posters to ENWorld, this poll's 798 votes represents only a little over 1% of ENWorld.
  So, it is hardly representative of the Gaming world.

  What I will find curious is how this poll compares with one taken, say, a year from now.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 10, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> We have 798 votes, and there has been a change again:
> 
> Changeover:  37%
> Partial Changeover:  15%
> ...




And, not all of your change over is fully changed over.  Some are still playing some previous edition.


----------



## Delta (Aug 10, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Remember that if there are 70,000 posters to ENWorld, this poll's 798 votes represents only a little over 1% of ENWorld.
> So, it is hardly representative of the Gaming world.




Whether it's representative or not has nothing to do with what percentage of the population you've got responses from. See my earlier post.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 10, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> But yet the majority of books are sold within the first 6 months of release.




Isn't it 3 months, and it applies to supplements? Core rules follow different sales patterns.



Dragon Snack said:


> And I think you forget the days of Windows 95, with people sleeping outside computer stores eager to be the first to have it...




I do remember when 4e came out ... or rather before 4e came out. People were so eager to have the rules that they downloaded them illegally just so they could start playing! 



Dragon Snack said:


> Really?  We must have been reading different previews then.





Sure, must have. I don't remember WotC saying "we want ALL to switch within 6 months!". Actually, I've never read any official statement at all as to what the rate of conversion they were hoping for. All I've read is that they're clobbering their projections, which could mean that they are actually doing BETTER than they expected with the conversions.




Dragon Snack said:


> Are these "quotes" from before or after 4.0 was announced?  I remember them from after.  I don't recall them from before...




Before: from 3rd parties.

After: from WotC and 3rd parties. 




Dragon Snack said:


> I may not be a fan of 4.0, but I still thought it would capture 70-80% of the exisiting base...




I think it will, given a realistic timeframe.

/M


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 10, 2008)

Ack.  Losing it.  The results are as before:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  49%

  We are at 799 votes.  Can we get to 800?  Yes!  Can we get to 1,000?  I hope so!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 10, 2008)

Maggan said:


> Isn't it 3 months, and it applies to supplements? Core rules follow different sales patterns.




The idea is that the core books will keep selling over the course of the edition and that the supplements will help push sales of the core books. Regardless, you still see the greatest number of sales immediately after release.



> I do remember when 4e came out ... or rather before 4e came out. People were so eager to have the rules that they downloaded them illegally just so they could start playing!



More likely they just wanted to see what was behind the secrecy. I don't doubt, however, that it's selling well. I'm a non-adopter and I bought the core books. I know several other who bought them, checked them out, and decided not to adopt it for their games.



> Sure, must have. I don't remember WotC saying "we want ALL to switch within 6 months!". Actually, I've never read any official statement at all as to what the rate of conversion they were hoping for. All I've read is that they're clobbering their projections, which could mean that they are actually doing BETTER than they expected with the conversions.



Ideally the majority would switch within the first few months. They announced it about a year ahead of time to give people warning, time to save, time to watch the information about the game that they release, and time to end their 3rd edition campaigns. That also gives them time to plant the seeds that the edition they've been promoting like crazy for the last eight years is somehow fundamentally flawed, despite the talent that worked on it, the number of players, and the eight years of continued support. It's all marketing. Hit the reset button and hope people jump onboard.

The company is telling people that it's selling like crazy. Of course they're telling people that. Even if the truth was that it was selling well below expectations, they would still be out there bragging about how well it's doing because if the perception was that it wasn't selling well, those who had been early adopters would stop buying stuff and go with what everybody else is playing.If you're a company selling a product, you never admit defeat until the point where everyone is cleaning out their desks and you're turning out the lights. But, as I said, I don't think 4E doing poorly, I suspect that it's hitting its target numbers. I just doubt that it's actually exceeding them, based on the quantity if negativity I've seen from the existing player base.

Honestly, I think that if the conversion rate isn't at about 65% by the end of the year, 4th edition will not be performing up to expectations. Will it hit that number? Has it actually hit that number and we just can't tell because we talk about this stuff on the internet? Check back in a few months. A lot of people are buying the core rules, so the real measure will be in RPGA participation, and the sales of supplements.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 10, 2008)

Well cheers.  800 votes!  And still counting!  : )
  Good going, folks.

  We may make that 1,000 vote mark yet.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 11, 2008)

Wow. Quite a few people didn't change to 4E. 

I haven't bought the books yet. I've been playing with friends books. After about 15 to 20 sessions, I have no intention of buying the books. I'm not into the game.

4E is not my type of game system. All it did was show me that there is no perfect game system and make me wish GURPS was better supported with adventures and monster books and the like. 

At first I thought it was very cinematic. But after playing it for a while I found it is cinema on repeat. It's nice that characters have powers, but after they use them encounter after encounter, they don't seem so special anymore. My players use their encounter powers whether they are needed or not because they feel like they wasted them if they don't use them. There is no more sitting on a power until it is needed like when they were all dailies, now there is a push to blow off every encounter power every encounter making powers seem less special. 

The at will wizard powers seemed cool at first. It gave the feel of the wizard destroying a large number of minions. But now that my party fighter calls for a scorching blast right on top of him to destroy minions because the damage is negligible to him and destroys a ton of minions, those wizard powers just seem stupid and underpowered. A 3E wizard could not drop an AoE spell on top of a character (especially an empowered or maximized AoE spell) and have it do negligible damage, while at the same time destroying a ton of other monsters. You had to be an archmage for that kind of precision.

The healing in 4E makes it so that every encounter is pretty easy as you rise in level. On top of all the powers that allow the expenditure of healing surges. I'm finding it pretty difficult to challenge my players with standard encounters. Minions die so quickly they rarely deal any useful damage. Overall, 4E is too easy a game past lvl 1. Maybe it will get harder once we reach higher level, but so far my group has been mowing through monsters I thought would be tougher like ghouls and ogres. This is all being done at lvl 3. Ghoul paralysis is a joke now unless they get a series of hits that stun. Immobilized? big deal. You can still attack and get a save to break the immobilization before the ghoul can stun you.

Overall, I have to say the magic of 4E has worn off on me. I still like the minis and if I go back to 3E, I'll use minis this time around. It makes movement so much easier. But as far as the 4E mechanics go, the only thing I still like better than 3E about it is the ease of preparation to run adventures.

As far as designing tough challenges, 4E is very limiting. I used to be able to design a strategy for a group of monsters based on the spell casters of a given group. Now the strategy is pre-determined for every monster since their capabilities are set and do not change and cannot change without me rewriting the monster. Spell lists gave alot more flexibility in encounter design. These new monsters may have some tough abilities, but those abilities are set and if they don't work the monster is done. 

I'm also able to get through less encounters in 4E than I did 3E. A random encounter used to take a 5 or 10 minutes. Now there aren't really any random encounters. Even small guardroom encounters take a while to fight because the player damage doesn't scale up equal to hit points. It takes a long time to go through a monsters hit points when your damage isn't increasing by very much level to level.

The game is very different. Though parts are fun, I have to say I am somewhat dissatisfied with the way many things work. I truly don't like certain elements of 4E that would look stupid in a story like my fighter calling for AoE right on top of his location because it does such pathetic damage or the constant push to use every single encounter power every encounter just because you can. 

It just goes to show that there is no perfect game system. There probably never will be a perfect game system. I don't know how much I like 4E after having played it and I can see why quite a few people still prefer older editions.

There was still the same repetition. But at least it was repetition that was somewhat more easily believed like a fighter swinging his sword over and over again or a wizard casting magic missile from a wand to save his memorized magic missile for a creature that might have SR. Now it is magic missile  or scorching burst over and over again throw in an encounter power every encounter and a daily every once in a while. The fighter uses his knock prone power every fight as though I'm reading a book where every fight the fighter is knocking someone down or back. The rogue is knocking someone down every fight. And the same repetititous actions over and over again that were I reading a book about it I would lose my mind. 

Before a fight was a few cuts of the sword. Now it is special actions that aren't that special because of repetition.

I'm far more of a story guy. This really intereferes with my imagination's ability to think of the adventure as a story. 

But I probably won't be able to change. My friends are more MMORPG guys, and they like gaining powers every now and again. They have no problem with the repetitious use of "special" powers as they have become accustomed to such power useage from MMORPGs. While I despise it because it is nothing like a story.

At least in 3E a fighting style was a fighting style where maneuvers were based on conditions rather than times per day. Magical powers were based on times per day, but a fighter could use his combat maneuvers whenever conditions allowed for it. Now I just watch my players blow off encounters whenever they get the chance because at the very least it spikes their damage a bit. They could care less about conditions. It sure seems alot less like a fighting style.

Before I played 4E I was speaking speculatively. I was wrong about some of the speculation. But after playing 4E I have to say that it has some problems that are difficult to resolve for my imagination. I didn't care for the repetitous use of wands for healing from 3E, but I don't know that I care more for the repetitious use of powers including healing of 4E. The repetition is still there, it is just a bit different and encompasses more. 

Now I can't carry on a long encounter that spans several different rooms for fear of players being out of their encounter powers and healing. At least with wands and powers based on conditions, I could run varied encounters that involved one room or many rooms. Now that is not the case or I will kill the party, yet room by room seems too easy alot of the time. All in all just not a great game. I understand why so many people are resisting the change. 4E has alot of mechanical issues I can see players being displeased with. It is not even close to a perfect game system and I would say it is not even an improvement over 3E. It is just different and provides a different play experience that some will like and some won't.

I think I'm going to check out Pathfinder when it drops.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Aug 11, 2008)

The fact that over 21% of pollsters have tried 4th edition and aren't sticking with it is kinda shocking.

My group has given 4th edition a shot and, most likely, will give it another go.  So far we've agreed that it makes for a fun "pick up" game every once in a while BUT we don't see it in our regular game rotation.


----------



## Dedekind (Aug 11, 2008)

I'm bet this poll suffers from selection bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

What we don't know is if the participants of the poll are indicative of the population of gamers.  I suspect not because Enworld is a 3rd party publisher with lots of 3rd party publisher contacts.  There is also the usual bias of only people who care about a topic vote on a topic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 11, 2008)

If you fear selection bias- I'm not saying it isn't present here, because it probably is- try posting links to this thread at WotC's site and other places.

I don't expect much change, though.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Aug 11, 2008)

I voted no changeover, haven't tried 4E, though I admit to being "a little bicurious."

The problem is that one person in my group has said no effing way, though I suspect eventually he'll want to try it given that he owns pretty much all things D&D (including 4E).

I wonder how many people are prevented from trying it (and voted like I did) that are in a similar situation.  If even one person isn't interested that might delay/prevent changeover.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 11, 2008)

jadrax said:


> Your conclusions would be accurate only if the people that post on internet message boards where in any way a significant proportion of a products customer base.



I thought we were beyond this, we are talking about the percentages.  These are the numbers we have to discuss, if you have better numbers let's see them.



jadrax said:


> Honestly, I have seen actual death threats made over changing an Armour Dye from 'Hot Pink' to Red, if there is one thing message boards do it's polarise the people on them.



Yes, some people on 'teh intraweb' are psychos.  But 50% of them?



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But WoW users have no choice, if they want to keep playing.



Well, they can play other MMORPGs, but if they want to keep playing WoW then I guess the changes weren't that polarizing...



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How often can you use a comic book?
> How often can you use the PHB 3.5?



But you can stop buying comics the very next issue if you don't like the direction of the storyline, you can't give back the PHB (well, I suppose you could, but who returns gaming books? - yeah, yeah, I'll hear from them now).  I would say comics would be more adversly effected by disenfranchising their base, thus the fact they they stay in business proves that they aren't alienating half their customers with "every single change".



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In that case - look at how many people have tried it, meaning they must have access to the books?



Not sure I get your question.  This wasn't about the books selling well, this was a response to the changeover taking an extended period.  My point was that sales are the best when things are new, next year 4.0 won't be the "new thing" anymore.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How many of those that haven't tried have bought the books and decided to not try after all? Of course, you can ask how many people need the Core Books if they just try it, and how many may have downloaded it... But then I could ask how many people never bought the 3E core rules and relied on the SRD or copies from friends (or pirated copies).



Umm, OK?  Was I arguing this?



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, what we hope or think might not have any relation to what will actually happen. I have no idea about the "conversion" rate with role playing games. I suspect it's higher then, say, the conversion rate in switch between car models.



Again, why go with "conversion rates" of high ticket items?  Of course something costing thousands of dollars doesn't have a high conversion rate.  Cars =/= RPGs...



Maggan said:


> Isn't it 3 months, and it applies to supplements? Core rules follow different sales patterns.



Well, 3 months makes my point even better.  As Darrin said, you see the most sales right after release.



Maggan said:


> I do remember when 4e came out ... or rather before 4e came out. People were so eager to have the rules that they downloaded them illegally just so they could start playing!



You're right, people certainly don't download things illegally because they want something for nothing.  Oh, wait...



Maggan said:


> Sure, must have. I don't remember WotC saying "we want ALL to switch within 6 months!".



Darrin stole my thunder again, but they did say "finish up your 3.5 campaigns" when they announced it at Gen Con last year...



Maggan said:


> Before: from 3rd parties.



Not to be snarky, but, link?



Maggan said:


> I think it will [get to 70-80%], given a realistic timeframe.



Well, now I think it will get to 60-70% (I put all the partial changeovers into the 4.0 column and I think some that haven't played will change as well), but I guess only time will tell...


----------



## Maggan (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Ideally the majority would switch, within the first few months.




And by this un-scentific poll, a majority have adopted the new rules.




Darrin Drader said:


> Even if the truth was that it was selling well below expectations, they would still be out there bragging about how well it's doing




If it wasn't selling well, or if it was below projections, we would also see price-drops, crossover promotions, and other measures to get the sales momentum going.

A bit like the DDI. It aint working according to projections, so they lower the asking price to get people to hop on. I'm not seeing any of that when it comes to the core rules, so I think they are tracking at or above their projection.



Darrin Drader said:


> Honestly, I think that if the conversion rate isn't at about 65% by the end of the year, 4th edition will not be performing up to expectations.




Five months more to go to capture another 15% of the players (if we go by this poll). I think that is a realistic target.

EDIT: Oh, and just a comment on this:



Darrin Drader said:


> I just doubt that it's actually exceeding them, based on the quantity if negativity I've seen from the existing player base.




Looking at the 20 or so gamers I have first hand contact with,  about 90% of those who played D&D3 have adopted D&D4, and they love it. I'm sure that's not indicative of how the majority of players are reacting to the game, though.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Aug 11, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> This wasn't about the books selling well, this was a response to the changeover taking an extended period.  My point was that sales are the best when things are new, next year 4.0 won't be the "new thing" anymore.




Next year. Yes, that's a realistic time frame for the sales of core books to level off into "noise". That gives WotC five more months to capture marketshare for 4e before that has happened to such a great extent that they need to do something. Like release a new Player's Handbook, perhaps?



Dragon Snack said:


> Well, 3 months makes my point even better.  As Darrin said, you see the most sales right after release.




Darrin also supported that core rules follow a different sales pattern. Sure, sales will level off, they are biggest at the beginning, and that's why we have a 51% conversion after three months. And core rules that are in the third printing.



Dragon Snack said:


> You're right, people certainly don't download things illegally because they want something for nothing.  Oh, wait...




If we continue to talk about this in context with your observation about Windows 95, I'll just say that I'm sure Windows 95 was pirated as well because people wanted something for nothing, although I'm not sure what point I'm making.



Dragon Snack said:


> Darrin stole my thunder again, but they did say "finish up your 3.5 campaigns" when they announced it at Gen Con last year...




Of course they did. What else would they say? And finishing up campaigns can take quite some time. And when those who haven't yet done so, do finish let's say Age of Worms, then 4e is there waiting for them, better supported, and more talked about online.




Dragon Snack said:


> Not to be snarky, but, link?




Sure.

http://www.chrispramas.com/2007_01_01_pastblog.html

Look for the words "d20 material continuing its death spiral" in the first post on the page.



Dragon Snack said:


> Well, now I think it will get to 60-70% (I put all the partial changeovers into the 4.0 column and I think some that haven't played will change as well), but I guess only time will tell...




Right, that's what I think as well. And we have to let time actually pass before knowing for sure.

/M


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 11, 2008)

> Look for the words "d20 material continuing its death spiral" in the first post on the page.




The _whole_ quote is:
"With the market for third party d20 material continuing its death spiral, there is no longer a quick and easy way for new companies to establish themselves."

IOW, the writer was not describing the whole market for d20 material in general, but rather the decreasing marketability of 3PP material from _new 3PPs._  D20 wasn't dying, it was a mature market saturated with multiple competitors.

Also note the date of that post- January 2007- just months before 4Ed was announced.

At the time, WotC wasn't releasing much quality new material, just compilations and corrections of previously released material.  In some cases, the 3PPs were busy supporting their own 3Ed variants more than supplementing WotC's product with generic releases.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 11, 2008)

Maggan said:


> Looking at the 20 or so gamers I have first hand contact with,  about 90% of those who played D&D3 have adopted D&D4, and they love it. I'm sure that's not indicative of how the majority of players are reacting to the game, though.




Thanks to a convention that I was a guest at a week ago, I've had contact with somewhere around a 150 or so gamers, and the 50% adoption rate has held up pretty well in the real world.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 11, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The _whole_ quote is:
> "With the market for third party d20 material continuing its death spiral, there is no longer a quick and easy way for new companies to establish themselves."




Using the words "death spiral" isn't a ringing endorsement of the health of the d20 market at the time. It was also about then that Green Ronin, one of the biggest d20 producers, announced going systemless with Freeport.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Also note the date of that post- January 2007- just months before 4Ed was announced.




The operative word being "before". I was asked to provide a link to back up my claim of seeing third parties saying d20 was not doing well before the announcement of 4th. I did.

EDIT: I'll add this as well:

http://necromancergames.yuku.com/sreply/12110/t/Can-d20-even-succeed-today-.html



Dannyalcatraz said:


> At the time, WotC wasn't releasing much quality new material, just compilations and corrections of previously released material.  In some cases, the 3PPs were busy supporting their own 3Ed variants more than supplementing WotC's product with generic releases.




3rd parties were also moving away from d20 at that time. Mongoose released RQ, Green Ronin went systemless, Malhavoc stopped producing, Sword and Sorcery as well, print runs had dropped from tens of thousands to maybe thousands if you were lucky, Kenzer all but stopped releasing d20 compatible material, Atlas had all but stopped doing d20, and smaller 3rd party publishers were dropping like flies.

And all this was happening because d20 sales were fine and healthy? No, that was happening because d20 sales were stalling. At least that was the impression I got back then.

Mongoose and Paizo has said that they were doing well at the time. A lot of others have said that they weren't. At least that's my impression of the discussions at the time. It would be great if some of the publishers chime in.

After all, this is just my impression of the state of the business at the time.

/M


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 11, 2008)

We have another change in the results, so here are the numbers:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  13%
  No Changeover:  50%


----------



## Maggan (Aug 11, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> We have another change in the results, so here are the numbers:
> 
> Changeover:  37%
> Partial Changeover:  13%
> No Changeover:  50%




It should at this time be noted that the old trick of deleting the cookies on your computer allowing you to vote again still works. 

This might be one explanation of the surges of voting that occurs on both ends of the spectrum.

/M


----------



## jadrax (Aug 11, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> I thought we were beyond this, we are talking about the percentages.  These are the numbers we have to discuss, if you have better numbers let's see them.




I am discussing them I am saying like every internet poll from before time was recorded, they are not worth taking seriously.

Recent example, "Spiderman - One More Day", Internet polls say that 75% of people are dropping their subscription, real world result is the highest selling comic in years.

The lack of credible evidence does not logically dictate that you then must move to non-credible evidence and believe it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

Maggan said:


> It should at this time be noted that the old trick of deleting the cookies on your computer allowing you to vote again still works.
> 
> This might be one explanation of the surges of voting that occurs on both ends of the spectrum.
> 
> /M




Not on ENWorld polls. The server tracks by login who voted and who didn't (I check from multiple computers and can say it is not cookies). If people are rigging the vote they are doing it by setting up whole new accounts. Even if the recent surge is wholely vote rigging the numbers have changed at most by a couple of points in the last few hundred votes. Whether this is a statisicly relevant sample can be argued, it is unlikely though that the results are being rigged.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 11, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Not on ENWorld polls. The server tracks by login who voted and who didn't (I check from multiple computers and can say it is not cookies).




Ok, I'll try again.

Let's see, I've voted at least once already. I'll go to Firefox - Preferences - Privacy - Show Cookies ... now I delete the EN World cookies and refresh this thread in another tab.

I am now allowed to vote again. I do so to see if the vote is registered ... and it is. The choice I chose has gone up by 1 vote.

That looks to me like clearing cookies allows me to vote again. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what goes on on the server side, but it doesn't seem to track my vote after I delete the cookies.

EDIT: well, as you say it tracks my vote, telling me what I voted for initially. It still added my new vote to the total tally though.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2008)

Umm, guys, isn't this what got Fear the Boot booted off the Ennies a couple of years back? Because they made podcast jokes about exactly this exploit?


----------



## Maggan (Aug 11, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Umm, guys, isn't this what got Fear the Boot booted off the Ennies a couple of years back? Because they made podcast jokes about exactly this exploit?




Nah, this isn't the ENnies. But I'll take it to Meta.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2008)

Sorry Maggan, maybe I wasn't clear.  

For the Ennies, voting for the Best Podcast could be spoofed in this way.  At least that was my understanding.  Fear the Boot was up for an Ennie that year, and made several comments along that line.  They got (ahem) booted from the Ennies.  

I'm thinking that this is the same deal.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 11, 2008)

So, people are risking Banning on ENWorld, so they can skew the results of a poll?

  Look, you know the drill:  Break the rules on ENWorld, they will eventually find out.  Somehow, someway, maybe it will take awhile, but they will find out.
  You know those road signs saying 'This short term pain means long term relief?'  Well, it's the other way around here.  
  Your average over the counter painkillers might stop the headache from a traffic jam, but will do nothing for that nice red-lettered message from the Admins to you.

  Anyways, I will put up a +/- 10% to represent this kind of vote rigging.

  Changeover:  37% +/- 10%
  Partial Changover:  13% +/- 10%
  No Changeover:  50% +/- 10%


----------



## sword3274 (Aug 11, 2008)

Maggan said:


> It should at this time be noted that the old trick of deleting the cookies on your computer allowing you to vote again still works.
> 
> This might be one explanation of the surges of voting that occurs on both ends of the spectrum.
> 
> /M






Polls are just what they are - samplings of a whole.  People who say, "You can't get a fair poll on these/those boards.  Don't take too much stock in them."  Whatever.

I think that's a pretty piss-poor excuse.  I think that if people were sitting around, clearing cookies and revoting, the numbers would be huge - not to mention that they'd be a whole lot more votes for 4e, IMHO.  And if that was being done, on both sides, they would cancel out and the percentages would be the same.  Based in these votes and things like the ratings at Amazon, really tell the feedback of 4e.  This edition is shaping up to be a "love it or hate it" edition.

What's funny is that if the vote was vastly in favor of 4e, I doubt anyone would be arguing its validity.


----------



## Delta (Aug 11, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Anyways, I will put up a +/- 10% to represent this kind of vote rigging.
> 
> Changeover: 37% +/- 10%
> Partial Changover: 13% +/- 10%
> No Changeover: 50% +/- 10%




This post makes no sense whatsoever. Indicating "+/-10" in a statistical discussion means something very specific and calculable (see my prior post), and you've just made this up as an entire fiction.

Is this supposed to be a joke?


----------



## National Acrobat (Aug 11, 2008)

Had played 3.5, tried 4E and now we are going to start a new 1E campaign this weekend, so I guess we went way back.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 11, 2008)

Maggan said:


> The operative word being "before". I was asked to provide a link to back up my claim of seeing third parties saying d20 was not doing well before the announcement of 4th. I did.



And I accept it.  Thanks, I hadn't seen either before.  Clark's post is very prescient in light of events, but it's funny that NOBODY commented on it at the time.

I still don't read this poll as 51% switching, by my estimation it's still at 42% (I'm sure some partials are people testing the waters).  Eventually that number will rise, but I don't see the current numbers as anything _good_ for WotC.

I won't argue semantics over the core books or their shelf life, we all know they sold well.  Now, once Martial Powers and the FRCS are out...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> This post makes no sense whatsoever. Indicating "+/-10" in a statistical discussion means something very specific and calculable (see my prior post), and you've just made this up as an entire fiction.
> 
> Is this supposed to be a joke?




  Sort of, yes.  Just count the actual figures.  We'll compare it with the poll a year from now.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2008)

Dragonsnack - they've already announced that H1 has gone to second printing.  When's the last time a module went to second printing?


----------



## Delta (Aug 12, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Sort of, yes. Just count the actual figures. We'll compare it with the poll a year from now.




That doesn't make any sense at all. Are you planning on making up margins of error in the future as well?


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 12, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Dragonsnack - they've already announced that H1 has gone to second printing.  When's the last time a module went to second printing?



I'm pretty sure Keep On The Borderlands was, since I've seen it with at least 3 different covers.  But what's the point?  This whole "second printing" is kind of rediculous without numbers...

Irreguardless, I'm waiting to see how much 4.0s numbers will increase when the new books come out.  Make no mistake, I fully expect the numbers to take a nice jump in 4.0s favor.  Between the Swordmage and Living FR, the FRCS should be a huge catalyst for people changing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 12, 2008)

> > The whole quote is:
> > "With the market for third party d20 material continuing its death spiral, there is no longer a quick and easy way for new companies to establish themselves."
> 
> 
> ...




Regardless of the words "death spiral," the salient modifier is "third party."  The person who wrote that was explicitly limiting his comment here to 3PPs- the phrase does not apply to WotC's sales at all.  The market may have been bad for 3PPs, but we have no idea from his commentary as to the health of WotC's D20 sales.

As to the other link- so WotC flooded the market.  So what?  Its a standard tactic of industry leaders.  For decades, smaller comic book companies tried to break the stranglehold Marvel and DC had on the market.  Every year, Marvel and DC would flood the market with 4, 6, or 12 issue miniseries that made it unlikely that a startup would gain a foothold in the market, or even shelf space in a typical store.

However, eventually a certain few companies overcame this barrier to entry and carved out a niche for themselves, like Image, Dark Horse, Valiant, and a few others.

In the RPG market, serious gamers are going to figure out which company is putting out the best supp on Giantkin, Fey, Steampunk, Seafaring or whatever, even if WotC has supps on those topics.  Some may even outsell the WotC products.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Aug 12, 2008)

Complete change for me and my group, sort of. I ran a lot of AD&D and second edition, and tried third edition, but just didn't care for it. Didn't bother with 3.5.  Once we ran a couple playtests of 4e, I got rid of all my earlier D&D stuff except for my Eberron books and will run 4e as my D&D of choice until a better edition comes along.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> I'm pretty sure Keep On The Borderlands was, since I've seen it with at least 3 different covers.  But what's the point?  This whole "second printing" is kind of rediculous without numbers...
> 
> Irreguardless, I'm waiting to see how much 4.0s numbers will increase when the new books come out.  Make no mistake, I fully expect the numbers to take a nice jump in 4.0s favor.  Between the Swordmage and Living FR, the FRCS should be a huge catalyst for people changing.




I agree.  KotB was certainly reprinted.  As the highest selling module of all time, it should have been.  Helped being included in the Basic D&D box set.  

But, even without hard numbers, we can make a guess that the print runs are not in the small thousands.  WOTC's never printed in those small numbers.  WOTC generally prints in the tens of thousands at a minimum.  The fact that their first module has gone to second printing means that its selling pretty darn well.  Sure, it could be true that they only printed a handful of them, but, this isn't IMO, all that likely.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 12, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Regardless of the words "death spiral," the salient modifier is "third party."  The person who wrote that was explicitly limiting his comment here to 3PPs- the phrase does not apply to WotC's sales at all.




Yes. Exactly what I was asked to provide a link to.

/M


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2008)

sword3274 said:


> Polls are just what they are - samplings of a whole.  People who say, "You can't get a fair poll on these/those boards.  Don't take too much stock in them."  Whatever.
> 
> I think that's a pretty piss-poor excuse.  I think that if people were sitting around, clearing cookies and revoting, the numbers would be huge - not to mention that they'd be a whole lot more votes for 4e, IMHO.  And if that was being done, on both sides, they would cancel out and the percentages would be the same.  Based in these votes and things like the ratings at Amazon, really tell the feedback of 4e.  This edition is shaping up to be a "love it or hate it" edition.
> 
> What's funny is that if the vote was vastly in favor of 4e, I doubt anyone would be arguing its validity.



I don't think that "poll cheaters" are more likely to exist among 4E fans then under 4E dislikers.  
If there are really people manipulating a poll, it would either be a single individual (come on, how many EN Worlders do you trust to do such a thing - I can count it on 0 fingers , but I am naive), or the spread would be of equal percentage on both sides.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 12, 2008)

There has been another change, as of 880 votes:

  Changeover:  36%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  50%

  (Those who tried and quit 4E:  22%)


----------



## Ydars (Aug 12, 2008)

The sampling bias in this poll is inevitable; people are self-selecting whether to respond/vote/post and so it is likely that those who have an axe to grind are more likely to vote. 

Having said this, I sense that 4E is MUCH more polarising than any previous edition of D&D and suspect that the numbers of people who have tried 4E and are not switching is significant.

This mirrors my own personal experience; I was totally up for 4E, even though I have only played 3.5E for 3 years. Now, having seen the game, I will play both games because they feel so different in play.

What does this mean for WoTC; hard to know because we are assuming that they measure success by how many people switch; the real measure of success is how many NEW gamers they bring in and this will take time to measure.


----------



## Talmek (Aug 12, 2008)

Acquired the 4e core books from a friend who was interested in playing D&D. I read through them, but just couldn't get into it (unfortunately found myself unable to stop comparing 3.5e and 4e). I returned his books to him and let him borrow my 3.5e core books. I now have a new player to add to the ranks of my campaign (That is, if I could find more players where I live).

Staying with 3.5e for now, but who knows?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 12, 2008)

> What does this mean for WoTC; hard to know because we are assuming that they measure success by how many people switch; the real measure of success is how many NEW gamers they bring in and this will take time to measure.




Or more accurately- whether the influx of new gamers is great enough to offset the non-adopters, resulting in at least no downturn in sales, vis a vis 3.X.

Its the total sales that matter- if the newbies outnumber the stay-at-homes, the game will be a success.  If not...


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 12, 2008)

Ydars said:


> What does this mean for WoTC; hard to know because we are assuming that they measure success by how many people switch; the real measure of success is how many NEW gamers they bring in and this will take time to measure.



Erm, actually, I think they measure success by how many books they sell.

As I've already pointed out at least once in this thread, me voting 'Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play' doesn't mean I'm not buying the books. I'm buying them even though I don't currently play 4E and probably won't for quite a while.

I doubt I'm the only one.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Aug 13, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> Erm, actually, I think they measure success by how many books they sell.
> 
> As I've already pointed out at least once in this thread, me voting 'Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play' doesn't mean I'm not buying the books. I'm buying them even though I don't currently play 4E and probably won't for quite a while.
> 
> I doubt I'm the only one.




My situation exactly -- I have the books, one guy in the group says no way, but some are curious.  There are probably others who are just waiting for the opportunity....


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 13, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> Erm, actually, I think they measure success by how many books they sell.
> 
> As I've already pointed out at least once in this thread, me voting 'Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play' doesn't mean I'm not buying the books. I'm buying them even though I don't currently play 4E and probably won't for quite a while.
> 
> I doubt I'm the only one.




As I've said in other threads, I think 4e will be made or broken depending on long term success.


----------



## meomwt (Aug 13, 2008)

We hit 900 votes!

Almost at those magical four figures now...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 13, 2008)

902 votes!  We're almost there! (to 1,000 votes)  : )

  The results are as follows, changed again:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changover:  14%
  No Changeover:  49%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 14, 2008)

We only need 93 more votes, and we're there.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> We only need 93 more votes, and we're there.




Is this really necessary? 

It has been proven that the poll has been rigged, so whats the point?


----------



## scruffygrognard (Aug 14, 2008)

It really sucks that people would rig the poll to support their game preference.  It's in very bad form.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

cperkins said:


> It really sucks that people would rig the poll to support their game preference.  It's in very bad form.




It just not sucks, but is rather stupid to think that this poll would actually have any importance or influence so that it would have to be rigged.


----------



## jadrax (Aug 14, 2008)

I wonder if it is possible to post polls that are not anonymous on these forums?


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> I don't play online games so I have no experience with them, but I somehow find that doubtful.  WoW hasn't lost half of it's users...




And who says WOTC did?


----------



## Delta (Aug 14, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> It has been proven that the poll has been rigged, so whats the point?




I think I saw evidence that the poll was _riggable_. No one offered proof that the poll _has been rigged_.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

Delta said:


> I think I saw evidence that the poll was _riggable_. No one offered proof that the poll _has been rigged_.




Read the whole thread, there is s post by maggan in which he explains how to do it and as an example posts twice.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 14, 2008)

(humor)

  First, we had Edition Wars Threads.
  Now, we are going to have Poll Wars Threads?  (Whether Polls Were Rigged Wars Threads, that is)

  Just get to the 1,000 votes, and I'll end this poll.

  It's still sitting at, by the way:

  37% Changeover
  14% Partial Changeover
  49% No Changeover


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 14, 2008)

Oops.  Sorry.  As of 919 votes, it changed to:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  13%
  No Changeover:  50%


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 14, 2008)

jadrax said:


> I wonder if it is possible to post polls that are not anonymous on these forums?




It is!

Just make it a public poll (which is an option when you create a poll).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 15, 2008)

Back to:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changeover:  49%

  -

  Less than 80 votes to go ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 17, 2008)

75 votes to go.


----------



## Jack Colby (Aug 17, 2008)

I'm currently playing 4E, AD&D 2nd edition and Holmes D&D.  I can't fathom why someone would want to "change over" to the newest game entirely... The various editions are all different, and best suited for particular types of play, none of which have become obsolete.  4E doesn't do what AD&D does, and AD&D doesn't do what the original rules did.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 17, 2008)

Dear Sir, your reasonable ideas stop us from having threads with antagonistic content. Please refrain from lessening our ability to create Clash of the Titans - style threads.


----------



## megamania (Aug 17, 2008)

Why fix something if its not broken (well- hardly)

A Vote for no 4e


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 17, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> It is!
> 
> Just make it a public poll (which is an option when you create a poll).




And I really prefer this option when posting my own polls. I like to know who is voting, and what. Transparent EN World Poster FTW.  

In a few years, I will have detailed profiles on all EN World posters, and can sell them to WotC and Paizo... I'll get rich! *insert evil, manical laughter here*


----------



## Treebore (Aug 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And I really prefer this option when posting my own polls. I like to know who is voting, and what. Transparent EN World Poster FTW.
> 
> In a few years, I will have detailed profiles on all EN World posters, and can sell them to WotC and Paizo... I'll get rich! *insert evil, manical laughter here*





This poll already has enough votes to be a "valid" poll. Just as valid as many of the polls, with their +/- 3% error you see on the news stations.

Polling ENWorlders/internet users is just as valid as polling "Registered Voters".

Arguments can definitely be made about the polls validity, but anyone who understand "statistics" knows that any such poll, or set of statistical data, can be argued. Not to mention manipulated.

Still, if this poll were able to be followed up on with a "real world" poll, I bet it would be within 10% of that poll. The only question I have, is in which direction would that 10% be? I would suspect it would favor WOTC, but I am not so sure as to be surprised if it favored older/other editions.

So I don't think I would give this poll +/- 3% accuracy, but I bet it has +/- 10% accuracy.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 18, 2008)

Well, earlier in this thread, I mentioned that none of the dnd players I knew or their groups were playing 4e.  That has changed. 

One of my friends just moved to Buena Park to be close to her boyfriend.  Currently, his group is trying 4e.  She played it for the first time last week (the group had already been playing the system). Her statement was that she prefers 3e and would prefer to be playing 3e.  However, she is glad to already  have an rpg to play and her boyfriend is one of the best DMs she has had (admitting her bias).

As for her boyfriend, he is not sure they are going to stay with 4e. He has some issues with it. I didn't get to talk with him long enough to find out exactly what his issues were other than not being keen on how daily items work).  His big thing about 4e is  that fighters have interesting things to do, but after very brief chat, he will also be checking out the Book of Iron Might  for 3e (he liked the idea of the BOIM  mechanics and the ability to describe a maneuver and, with the cheat sheet, quickly build the maneuver or use sample maneuvers).


----------



## RFisher (Aug 18, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Still, if this poll were able to be followed up on with a "real world" poll, I bet it would be within 10% of that poll. The only question I have, is in which direction would that 10% be? I would suspect it would favor WOTC, but I am not so sure as to be surprised if it favored older/other editions.




Probably depends upon how you find your sample. If you find it through some method connected with retail, then I’d bet it would be in favor of Wizards too.

If you found someway to actually find a representative sample of _all_ RPG gamers, it might well go the other way.

But I only play at statistics.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 22, 2008)

The Changeover Poll is now closed.

  With close to 1,000 votes, as of August 22nd, 2008, the final results are:

  Changeover:  37%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  No Changover:  49%

  with 22% attempting 4E, and giving it up.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 22, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> with 22% attempting 4E, and giving it up.




Which means, for those that responded to this poll, around 30% of those that tried 4e chose not to make it their game of choice.

So they are (at least somewhat) retaining 50-70% of those that try it, which isn't too shabby.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> And who says WOTC did?




I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you quoted me when my sig had big bold letters in it saying I was at Gen Con (and therefor it was a good guess I wouldn't be back for at least 4-5 days to reply to it) or that 5 of your 159 posts are in this thread trying to discredit it...


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 24, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you quoted me when my sig had big bold letters in it saying I was at Gen Con (and therefor it was a good guess I wouldn't be back for at least 4-5 days to reply to it) or that 5 of your 159 posts are in this thread trying to discredit it...




I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you would think I care enough about you that I would try to post when you had no chance of replying or that you actually went and search all my posts to somehow give credit to your tinfoil conspiracy...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 24, 2008)

Could you two stop?  Not because it's disruptive or I dislike your arguments, but because _my god_ no two people with the same avatar should fight against each other like that.  It's confusing, to say the least.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 24, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Could you two stop?  Not because it's disruptive or I dislike your arguments, but because _my god_ no two people with the same avatar should fight against each other like that.  It's confusing, to say the least.




Well he started it!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2008)

Next on Fox: When Identical Twins Attack!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 25, 2008)

Alas, 21 votes short.

  In any case, it held at 37%/14%/49% for hundreds of votes.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 25, 2008)

Ha Ha!  _I_ get quoted, but somehow _I_ started "it".  That's awesome.

Wait, are we having an "it"?  Sorry, I'm not, I'll stick to a discussion...

It was already discussed as to why the poll has relevence pages ago, so I see no need to rehash that.  But since _you_ drew _me_ into conversation, I ask:

Why must you discredit this particular poll?  Do you disagree with it's findings or just it's methodology?  If the latter, how do you propose we obtain better results (beyond a new, public, poll)?



BTW - it isn't that hard to see how many times you posted in the thread (now 7 out of 162 posts), they're all on the last 2 pages...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Aug 25, 2008)

This poll has no meaning, until it is compared with another poll exactly like it, on ENWorld, at another time.  
  There must be something to compare to, and I meant this poll as that comparison.  So, when I create a poll a year from now, I can compare it to this poll, and make conclusions then on the results.

  Note that even then, it is only relevant as regarding ENWorld itself, not anywhere else.  I can only say that 'ENWorlders voted that way in that poll, and now they've voted this way in this poll' after that second poll a year from now.

  I have now established the results of the first poll, and that is what I wanted to do.  These results are 37/14/49.  I guess you could call the results the 'control group' and the results of later polls the 'research group.'


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 25, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:


> Ha Ha!  _I_ get quoted, but somehow _I_ started "it".  That's awesome.
> 
> Wait, are we having an "it"?  Sorry, I'm not, I'll stick to a discussion...




Your perspective on the events  that transpired seem askew.



Dragon Snack said:


> It was already discussed as to why the poll has relevence pages ago, so I see no need to rehash that.  But since _you_ drew _me_ into conversation, I ask:




Actually I just asked you:



cangrejoide said:


> And who says WOTC did?








Dragon Snack said:


> Why must you discredit this particular poll?  Do you disagree with it's findings or just it's methodology?  If the latter, how do you propose we obtain better results (beyond a new, public, poll)?...




Well since you took time out to count and check all my posts, you should have read them as well. 

I disagree with the methodology ,also it was proven you could vote more than once. Hence: You cannot obtain better results unless you have a new poll with better measures of control.




Dragon Snack said:


> BTW - it isn't that hard to see how many times you posted in the thread (now 7 out of 162 posts), they're all on the last 2 pages...




I guess this one makes it 8 out of 163, so write up in your conspiracy notebook.


----------



## Felix (Aug 26, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> I disagree with the methodology ,also it was proven you could vote more than once.



With this proven flaw, which way do you suspect the results are skewed?



> Hence: You cannot obtain better results unless you have a new poll with better measures of control.



Ah: "Do it better." How do you suspect the results of a "better" poll would compare to this one? Please hypothesize for us.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Aug 26, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> I disagree with the methodology ,also it was proven you could vote more than once. Hence: You cannot obtain better results unless you have a new poll with better measures of control.




I don’t think the poll is meaningless or worthless. It tells us, out of all ENworld readers who cared to respond to the poll, this is the proportion who have and who haven’t moved to 4e. Judgements on how much ENworld represents the RPG community as a whole may make the poll more or less useful in your eyes, but the poll isn’t inaccurate.

There’s been no evidence of vote rigging, only the proposition that it’s theoretically possible. If there had been vote rigging, there would be a) more responses and b) less consistent results over the life of the poll. In fact, the poll results seem very consistent from its inception until now, with no major spikes one way or the other. (Also, I can't for the life of me understand why somebody would rig the results.)

What I think we are getting from a lot of responders here is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. As in “I can’t believe that many people don’t agree with me! The poll must therefore be wrong.” As I said, I don’t know how well the poll represents the public at large, but it seems a pretty accurate gauge of feeling here at ENworld.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 26, 2008)

Felix said:


> With this proven flaw, which way do you suspect the results are skewed?.




I dont suspect anything, I just stated a fact that the poll could be rigged, that notion alone invalidates all the results be they true or false to the actual reality.




Felix said:


> Ah: "Do it better." How do you suspect the results of a "better" poll would compare to this one? Please hypothesize for us.




No more hypothesizing, we have had enough of that in this thread.



TheSleepyKing said:


> I don’t think the poll is meaningless or worthless. It tells us, out of all ENworld readers who cared to respond to the poll, this is the proportion who have and who haven’t moved to 4e. Judgements on how much ENworld represents the RPG community as a whole may make the poll more or less useful in your eyes, but the poll isn’t inaccurate.
> 
> There’s been no evidence of vote rigging, only the proposition that it’s theoretically possible. If there had been vote rigging, there would be a) more responses and b) less consistent results over the life of the poll. In fact, the poll results seem very consistent from its inception until now, with no major spikes one way or the other. (Also, I can't for the life of me understand why somebody would rig the results.).




You are free to have your opinion of the results.



TheSleepyKing said:


> What I think we are getting from a lot of responders here is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. As in “I can’t believe that many people don’t agree with me! The poll must therefore be wrong.” As I said, I don’t know how well the poll represents the public at large, but it seems a pretty accurate gauge of feeling here at ENworld.




You say accuracy, I say bogus results.

Regardless of the results ( be they pro or con), if there is any doubt about the veracity of the poll, the results can't be trusted. If you were to make a descision based on poll results and was warned that the poll could be easily manipulated but no one had admited to it, would you  trust the results then?

Someone in this thread suggested having a non-anonymus poll. That maybe more reasonable aproach to avoid poll rigging.

And as for your comment "I can’t believe that many people don’t agree with me! The poll must therefore be wrong.” the same could be said both ways.

PS: For those keeping score that's 9 out of 167.


----------

