# Changeover Poll



## Edena_of_Neith

6 months ago, I put up a poll here on ENWorld, calling it the Changeover Poll.
  That poll was about whether people changed over to 4E, stayed with 3E, or went somewhere in-between in their gaming.  This poll asks the same question, but now more time has passed since the advent of 4E.  So this is the Changeover Poll Redux, as it were.

  This poll is exactly the same as the old poll, with the exactly same wording in the questions, and the exact same poll choices.  (Hopefully, for the sake of consistency, I can get 1,000 votes once more, as I did with the first poll.)

  I am curious, now that enough time had passed, to see if the results of that poll were holding, or if things had changed.  So here the Changeover Poll is, once more, after a 6 month wait, after Gen Con, after the release of 4E FR, and after a number of other new developments.

  I leave it in your hands to vote, if you would, in this new poll.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Mark Hope

Still playing _Pathfinder_ with houserules.  Still never tried 4e.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Did not vote in the first poll, as much as I can remember, but going with some 4e, but still focused on 3.5 (That is what I run now) 4E is a good game, and the alternate DM in my face to face is running it now. I'll run 3.5 now though. Not pathfinder, though as that is not 3.5.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Still both, though we're phasing out our 3.5 game.

WP


----------



## Shroomy

All 4e all the time.


----------



## darjr

The 3.5 game I was in ended. It may start up again, but it'll probably be on a day/time that I can't meet.


----------



## Aeolius

I voted "No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play" but to be fair I bought the 4e core books the day they were released, took a look through all three, and decided I preferred 3.5e.

   The same thing happened when 2e was released. I decided the prior edition was more suited to my style of play.


----------



## Rolflyn

Voted "_Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play_" but the most accurate description would be "bought and read 4e, ended 3e campaign, no D&D now, but when a new D&D game starts, it will be a previous edition".  It remains to be seen when we will restart a D&D game as we have many other options (other RPGs, board games, etc.).


----------



## diaglo

played 4ed as one shot only. not gonna change over. not gonna buy anything for it. not interested at all.

i've got more than enough OD&D to fill a vault


----------



## shilsen

Playing 50% 4e and 50% 3.5e now, mainly because I have a long running high level 3.5e game and it would be too difficult to convert to 4e. If it wasn't, I'd shift it to 4e in a flash.


----------



## Daijin

All 18 of us changed over to 4E


----------



## Treebore

I am now in the "Tried 4E for a couple of months, went back to what I was doing" option.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I voted "No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play" but to be fair I bought the 4e core books the day they were released, took a look through all three, and decided I preferred 3.5e.




That would describe me, and, but for the "bought the books" language, my group as well.

As for the poll itself, it looks so far like the percentages haven't changed.

(Yes, I know, "small sample."  That's why I said "so far.")


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I considered putting in a further option:  Irrelevant:  No D&D played now (or, something along the lines of that.)
  But I felt it would compromise the poll, since that was not an option in the first Changeover Poll 6 months ago.
  No, basically I am stuck with going with the exact same options as last time, and wishing for the thousand votes I got last time.

  I see 74 votes up there.  Those votes came in a hurry.  So, there is real hope of getting to the 1,000 votes?  I hope so.

  A pattern is emerging similar to the pattern in the first Changeover Poll.
  There is a large group that is all 4E, and a large group that falls in the No Changeover category.
  But I see a difference, too.  There are more votes in the middle, this time.

  The extremely preliminary results?

  Changover:  28%
  No Changeover:  55%
  Partial Changeover:  17%


----------



## Woas

I didn't vote as my choice isn't on the poll.

Other: Complete Change Over: No more D&D at all, regardless of edition.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Woas said:


> I didn't vote as my choice isn't on the poll.
> 
> Other: Complete Change Over: No more D&D at all, regardless of edition.




  Again, my regrets.  I considered putting that option in, but couldn't for the sake of consistency - it wasn't a choice in the first Changeover Poll.

  A poll regarding how many people have left the Hobby, or partially left the Hobby, or gone over to other areas of the Hobby (for example, giving up face-to-face D&D for computer D&D games) ... and why the change, what prompted the change ... is something I'd have to do separately.
  And such a poll would generate strong emotions, the kind I don't want to start, don't want to cause. 

  I don't know what to tell you, if you no longer play D&D, and don't know how to vote in this poll ... but you still want to vote in this poll.
  Frankly, I don't know how I'd vote if I were you, either.  I guess it's up to you to decide the matter (helpless look.)

  I mean, you could vote based on what game you'd play if you returned to D&D.  Or you could vote based on what type of D&D you played before you stopped playing.  I can only offer suggestions.  It's up to you, here.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Tried 4e. I ran the UGT through KotS and we decided as a group that the new game was not for us. We are back to 3.5 and may or may not try Pathfinder when it is finalized.


----------



## RefinedBean

Completely converted over to 4E, although I can play any system so long as I have the right people.  

This probably holds true for most people on ENworld, hatred for [insert edition here] not withstanding.


----------



## Greg K

I voted No Change: Never tried 4e. Earlier edition play. 

 I did the read rules and watch a couple of playtest sessions. I even started to take part  in a playtest, but walked out shortly after it began.  Most of the mechanical changes and the 4e design philosophy are, imo, worse than the actual problems that I have with 3e (most of which I can fix with UA, a few third party products, and a couple of houserules).


----------



## Hussar

Still in the middle of a Savage Tide campaign, so, no changeover for me.  Haven't played 4e either.


----------



## Remathilis

Returning to 3.5 (and an unfinished campaign) after a half-way disastrous run of fourth.

Out of five players, I had one who liked the system, and four who were apathetic at best, outright hostile at worst. Not counting my own preference (its good but not perfect) and you has a recipe for a group probably determined not to play it again anytime soon.

I will continue to play in a 4e Forgotten Realms game, but my own DMing for now will be 3.5. After that, we will explore all options (3.5, pathfinder final, SWSE, or 4e).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Ok, our first 100 votes in (102 as of this post) and we have:

  Changeover (poll options 1 or 2 selected) - 31.37%
  No Changeover (poll options 6 or 7 selected) - 54.90%
  Partial Changeover (poll options 3, 4, or 5 selected) - 13.73%


----------



## mmu1

To be honest, I had a bad feeling about 4E from the moment I listened to the announcement at Gencon last year - but I did follow it closely, tried a demo, read the books, and tried to judge it fairly.

Effectively, I think that puts me in the last group - never played 4E, still playing an earlier edition.

My current D&D group has two players willing to play 4E (but also 3.5 - one of them actually likes 3.5 better), one who hates the idea of switching systems more than anything but hasn't been terribly interested by what he's seen of 4E, one who'd probably play 4E if the rest of us switched and dragged him along but doesn't feel it's better, just different, and not worth the bother considering all the 3.5 adventures he has that he didn't even run yet, and three people who dislike 4E to various degrees and would probably be very unhappy if it was their only option as far as D&D is concerned.

Chances are our next campaign is going to be Pathfinder, or 3.5 with Pathfinder elements we like.


----------



## JeffB

Group is on hiatus ATM- but largely 4E and I ran a S&W game recently for some old friends. 


Anything but 3.X is fine, AFAIC


----------



## Evilusion

Well after our last session it looks like for my group we are going for another system. For us 4E is just to bland, not enough options for the characters. I know more books are on the way, but not looking to buy anymore books. 

So I vote the closest I could get Partial Changeover.

Evilusion


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Interesting results- not what I expected- but still quite early.


----------



## Edgewood

No changes here. I was offered a free copy of the 4E PHB and turned it down. I told the person offering it to me to give it to someone who would play it. Me and my on-line group are playing AD&D 1st edition currently and having a blast.


----------



## Shemeska

No changeover. I'm not interested in it, and the other DM running D&D is using 3.x with no intention of changing over. Plus, I'm playing in a Shadowrun game as well, and once the other D&D game is finished, other systems are in play for that slot.

Perhaps more telling, the one gaming group member who shall only be known as Blackbeard the Pirate actually deleted their 4e pdfs after looking them over and being so underwhelmed (largely by the 4e MM). That's pretty harsh.

Edit: *blink* Wow. I expected more of a 50/50 split in the poll, but the 4e support at this point in the poll seems significantly weaker.


----------



## scruffygrognard

I'm almost to the point of giving up on D&D too... which is kinda sad.  3.5, after 8+ years, has become a bit of a drag for me and 4th edition, after several sessions, did absolutely nothing for me.

At this point I'm trying to convince some of my fellow geeks to play Castles & Crusades... and will probably run it with for a few guys.  I'm still playing in a Scarred Lands game for 3.5 but the game is infrequent and not as satisfying as it once was.


----------



## joethelawyer

Edena_of_Neith said:


> 6 months ago, I put up a poll here on ENWorld, calling it the Changeover Poll.
> That poll was about whether people changed over to 4E, stayed with 3E, or went somewhere in-between in their gaming.  This poll asks the same question, but now more time has passed since the advent of 4E.  So this is the Changeover Poll Redux, as it were.
> 
> This poll is exactly the same as the old poll, with the exactly same wording in the questions, and the exact same poll choices.  (Hopefully, for the sake of consistency, I can get 1,000 votes once more, as I did with the first poll.)
> 
> I am curious, now that enough time had passed, to see if the results of that poll were holding, or if things had changed.  So here the Changeover Poll is, once more, after a 6 month wait, after Gen Con, after the release of 4E FR, and after a number of other new developments.
> 
> I leave it in your hands to vote, if you would, in this new poll.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> Edena_of_Neith





what were the final results in the original changeover poll?  do you have a link to it? i dont have the search capability


----------



## mmu1

joethelawyer said:


> what were the final results in the original changeover poll?  do you have a link to it? i dont have the search capability




Neither do I, but Google to the rescue!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/235481-changeover-poll.html

Not much different than what we're seeing now.

Edit: Actually, on second glance, that's not true. Not _fundamentally_ different as far as the dsitribution of votes goes, but last time it was 49% of people that never changed or changed and went back. Now, it's 59% so far - if that trend holds, that'd be a significant change.


----------



## joethelawyer

mmu1 said:


> Neither do I, but Google to the rescue!
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/235481-changeover-poll.html
> 
> Not much different than what we're seeing now.




actually, looks like the tried it and went back category went up 9%, which you would expect to see in 5 months.  i dont mean that as a slam against 4e, i just mean that its natural that in 5 months some people would try it and go back


----------



## Echohawk

shilsen said:


> Playing 50% 4e and 50% 3.5e now, mainly because I have a long running high level 3.5e game and it would be too difficult to convert to 4e. If it wasn't, I'd shift it to 4e in a flash.



This. Plus the added comment that I've accelerated the pace of my 3.5 campaign with a view to wrapping it up sooner rather than later, because the burden of high-level game prep weighs heavily on me now that I can compare it to the ease of 4e game prep...


----------



## Angel Tarragon

Slight Changeover. Currently testing the 4E waters and I'm liking it so far, but afaic it is a completely different game. A game I like; but not D&D to me. I recognize as part of the natural evolution of the game but I'm too much of a grognard to completely move forward. I will be a smattering of the 4E books, but only to give myself more options when playing and to raid 'em for ideas for the Tale.

3.5 will always be my preferred edition. Until I have completely written the PHB and MM for the Tale, it will be my system of choice.


----------



## Griego

Still playing 3.5, no 4e yet, but have not ruled it out by any means. My group likes to take its time on such things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I had already tracked that link down...I was going to post it afterwards to avoid any tainting of this poll.  Yeah, I know, that's a bit rigorous, but hey!


----------



## Jack7

For my setting we use 4th Edition Character Classes for the humanoid races, and homebrew modified AD&D/semi-historical Character Classes for the human races.

That works out good for us because the humanoids are from a different world than the humans and so come across as very different types of beings than humans.

I like some of the rules, classes, and races of 4th edition and almost none of the magic, items, background, outlook, etc.

So I reckon it's about half of one and most of the other.


----------



## El Mahdi

Still playing my houseruled 3.5E. Still not switching to 4E. The only difference for me is that I do have friends that have switched, although they live a bit of a drive from me. When I go to see them, I wouldn't have a problem playing in a 4E game with them. Occasional participation in a 4E game doesn't constitute "switching" to me. If I run a game, it's still my houseruled 3.5E, period.  (Although, some of those "houserules" are stolen from 4E.)

But, probably the only thing that really matters to WoTC is, I've bought the core books, a couple of supplements and an adventure, and am about to get a DDI sub. As long as people keep buying their products, whether switching or not, I doubt it really matters to Wizards.


----------



## Khairn

I've tried 4E and will still play in 1 game because of the GM and players.  But overall I found that the system took more away from my enjoyment of the game than it brought.  

On the flip side 4E did encourage me to look at other systems, and now I'm more excited about playing games other than D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As long as people keep buying their products, whether switching or not, I doubt it really matters to Wizards.




Therin lies the trick.

If the latter 2 poll categories continue to grow, then there are likely fewer and fewer gamers within WotC's 4Ed market, which could lead to declines in sales.


----------



## Slander

Still playing 3.5, haven't tried 4E yet (though I've read it). Nothing specific against 4E. We started the WotBS campaign a couple months before 4E came out, we're only midway through the third adventure, and we likely won't even talk about converting until we finish the campaign (one way or the other).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

We now have 200 votes in the new poll.  As of the 200 vote mark:

  Changeover:  27%
  No Changeover:  60%
  Partial Changeover:  13%


----------



## Dragonblade

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Therin lies the trick.
> 
> If the latter 2 poll categories continue to grow, then there are likely fewer and fewer gamers within WotC's 4Ed market, which could lead to declines in sales.




Well, I find the poll results interesting because literally the only people I know of that still play 3.5 are people I know from EN World.

None of the local gamers I know still plays 3.5. That not only includes my immediate group which is 9 people (none of whom read EN World), but also the people I know from hanging out at the FLGS who all have their own groups that play 4e. All told, thats around 30 some people, probably more. All 4e only with zero interest of going back to 3.5. And we talk about this stuff all the time.

Heck, my FLGS doesn't even stock 3.5 books or Pathfinder stuff anymore outside of a token copy of the latest release. The owners will order it for you if you want it, but it doesn't seem to sell well. But that could also be because all the Paizo diehards all buy based off subscription or internet sales direct from Paizo.

Anyway, I think EN World's audience seems to skew heavily towards 3.5 and Pathfinder fans. The poll results don't mesh at all with the reality I see offline.


----------



## Gothmog

Pretty much all 4e, all the time here in the three groups I'm in.  Two groups swore off 3.x forever, and the other group plays 4e on a rotating schedule with Spycraft and Savage Worlds Deadlands game.

Although earlier this year I got back together for a weekend of gaming with a group I was in during college, and we played about 20 hours of AD&D 2e- great times!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

To Dragonblade:

  I could not tell you whether ENWorld is skewed towards 3rd edition or earlier editions of D&D/AD&D (or Pathfinder - I am receiving the impression that many think of Pathfinder as an Edition of D&D ... whether that is true or not, is up to them to decide, not myself) is not something within my knowledge.
  Frankly, I do not know at all what the disposition on ENWorld leans towards.  I would not know even if I had posted more often.  Morrus would know, and other Admins, but not myself.

  All I can do is take polls, and be curious about the results.

  You'll have to ask Morrus and the Admins here, what the sentiment is.  I do not know.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Jack99

4e all the way.


----------



## Gothmog

Dragonblade said:


> Well, I find the poll results interesting because literally the only people I know of that still play 3.5 are people I know from EN World.
> 
> None of the local gamers I know still plays 3.5. That not only includes my immediate group which is 9 people (none of whom read EN World), but also the people I know from hanging out at the FLGS who all have their own groups that play 4e. All told, thats around 30 some people, probably more. All 4e only with zero interest of going back to 3.5. And we talk about this stuff all the time.
> 
> Heck, my FLGS doesn't even stock 3.5 books or Pathfinder stuff anymore outside of a token copy of the latest release. The owners will order it for you if you want it, but it doesn't seem to sell well. But that could also be because all the Paizo diehards all buy based off subscription or internet sales direct from Paizo.
> 
> Anyway, I think EN World's audience seems to skew heavily towards 3.5 and Pathfinder fans. The poll results don't mesh at all with the reality I see offline.




Your experiences mirror my own, and for two FLGSs in Springfield and Columbia MO.  4e books sell like crazy, and requests from customers for 3.5/compatible stuff has dropped to nearly nothing.  I talk to quite a few of the guys who frequent my FLGS, and only one die hard group of five guys still plays 3.5/Pathfinder out of about 50 guys I know (and few, if any of them read ENWorld or any RPG forums online).  We debate and talk about 4e stuff all the time, swap house rules, ideas, plots, etc- so I have a pretty good feel for what folks around here are playing.

My FLGS gets one copy in of whatever new Pathfinder thing comes out (barring the Adventure Paths, which they get 5 of), and while they will special order anything you want, my understanding is that apart from a few internet-saavy gamers (which isn't that many), the PF stuff mostly sits on shelves for months until it gets dropped onto the bargain shelves.  For all intents and purposes, 3.x/Pathfinder is completely off the radar of 90% of the gaming public.

What I can tell you is that the demographic seems to have changed from 3.x to 4e, according to the owner of my FLGS.  Around here, 3.x was bought mostly by older males (25+).  4e has a much higher proportion of women and kids buying it than did 3.x, as well as gamers who lapsed and are coming back.  I do know the D&D Delve Night for January (part of which I'm running) is booked solid, but during 3.x's reign similar events had virtually no attendance.  Make of that what you will.


----------



## Echohawk

Dragonblade said:


> Well, I find the poll results interesting because literally the only people I know of that still play 3.5 are people I know from EN World. [...] Anyway, I think EN World's audience seems to skew heavily towards 3.5 and Pathfinder fans. The poll results don't mesh at all with the reality I see offline.



It seems reasonable that folks who visit ENWorld, and particularly those who post and respond to polls, are likely to be more serious about D&D (and RPGs in general) than more casual gamers. From that, I don't think it is too much of a leap to guess that folks here are probably also more invested (financially and emotionally) in 3ed than the average gamer. So I'd be surprised if the boards did not reflect more of a bias towards older editions of the game than the "average" gamer.

I mentioned up thread that I'm in the 50/50 category. I have one long-running 3.5 campaign, which would be too jarring to migrate to 4e, and I've also been running _Keep on the Shadowfell_ for another group. For me, the most troubling aspect of the edition change has been running both 3.5e and 4e campaigns _at the same time_. I find that I tend to confuse some of the minor differences in both games (what triggers attacks of opportunity, or counting diagonal movement, for example). I'm an experienced DM and usually notice my mistakes before the players do, so I don't think this is having much impact on the game for them. But I'm still finding it surprisingly annoying not to be able to focus on just one version of the rules. It is as if I can't quite immerse myself in the 4e system while I still need to keep 3.5e stored in my brain. 

I would not try to straddle two editions again. When we get to 5th edition, I'll wrap up any 4e campaigns first and only then start using the new rule system.


----------



## Echohawk

Gothmog said:


> What I can tell you is that the demographic seems to have changed from 3.x to 4e, according to the owner of my FLGS.  Around here, 3.x was bought mostly by older males (25+).  4e has a much higher proportion of women and kids buying it than did 3.x, as well as gamers who lapsed and are coming back.



If your local demographics are any indication of the general trend, and 4e is indeed getting more women and kids into the hobby, I think that is very good news for gamers, no matter which edition or RPG system is your personal preference!


----------



## Treebore

The misconception is that a tiny geographical area like one city would represent the rest of the country. The reality of this poll is that it is nationwide, and to a point, world wide. IF this poll gets 1,000 responses it will be as viable as the polls you saw on CNN and FOX about who would lead the US next.

When you take statistical data there are formula's you can apply to it to increase its accuracy by accounting for possible confounds. You have to be careful though, because you can literally make statistical data say pretty much whatever you wish it to say.

So if this poll was to be analyzed and have the appropriate formula's applied it would be accurate enough to be meaningful.

Who knows, maybe I'll get motivated to pull out my old books and look up some good engines and compile this into a useful set of data.

Even without accounting for confounds it will be generally accurate, however bean counters would be much more interested in data with an accuracy of +/-3% or better.


----------



## Dragonblade

Gothmog said:


> What I can tell you is that the demographic seems to have changed from 3.x to 4e, according to the owner of my FLGS.  Around here, 3.x was bought mostly by older males (25+).  4e has a much higher proportion of women and kids buying it than did 3.x, as well as gamers who lapsed and are coming back.  I do know the D&D Delve Night for January (part of which I'm running) is booked solid, but during 3.x's reign similar events had virtually no attendance.  Make of that what you will.




You make some interesting observations here. My circle of people I game with actually enlarged with 4e due to 2 lapsed players who quit D&D during the 3e era coming back, and one of my friend's wives was going to quit playing altogether. She is a casual gamer who has no concept of the rules, but she really likes the RP stuff. She hated 3e, but is much happier with the 4e powers system and her enthusiasm for playing has dramatically increased.


----------



## Dragonblade

Echohawk said:


> It seems reasonable that folks who visit ENWorld, and particularly those who post and respond to polls, are likely to be more serious about D&D (and RPGs in general) than more casual gamers. From that, I don't think it is too much of a leap to guess that folks here are probably also more invested (financially and emotionally) in 3ed than the average gamer. So I'd be surprised if the boards did not reflect more of a bias towards older editions of the game than the "average" gamer.




I agree. I think that is a very good observation.


----------



## Echohawk

Treebore said:


> IF this poll gets 1,000 responses it will be as viable as the polls you saw on CNN and FOX about who would lead the US next.



No, I don't think that's true. This is a self-selecting poll, with participants drawn from the category "people who are serious enough about gaming to have an account on a hobby-specific message board". Which means it measures something very different to media polls that have randomly selected participants. (That doesn't make it less interesting, just different.)


----------



## Dragonblade

Treebore said:


> The misconception is that a tiny geographical area like one city would represent the rest of the country. The reality of this poll is that it is nationwide, and to a point, world wide. IF this poll gets 1,000 responses it will be as viable as the polls you saw on CNN and FOX about who would lead the US next.




Its been a while since I have taken a statistics class, but not even close. A self-selecting internet poll on one D&D fansite is going to be representative of the buying habits of tens of thousands of gamers? Highly doubtful.

Out of all those 30 people I mentioned before, less than half are even aware of EN World, and of those people I'm the ONLY one who posts here or frequents the site with any regularity.

EN World is a great community, but it is nowhere near representative of all D&D gamers. The WotC boards dwarf EN World and at this point are probably like 90% 4e players if not higher.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I am merely curious.
  I do hope, that people will vote, and we'll have the thousand votes the first poll had.  I hope for interest in the poll.

  What would scare me is if nobody answered the poll, because nobody came to ENWorld, and/or nobody cared or gamed anymore.  That would be, what would be sad.

  The various editions of D&D?  The more the merrier.  The very fact a thousand might reply to this poll is heartening, because it means people still care, people still game, people still want to game.  And that's good enough for me.

  (So, those who have answered Other:  Changeover Irrelevant - I no longer play D&D or a D&D type game, face to face or on the computer or otherwise ... a few of the earlier posts in this thread ... those are the poll answers that are the sad answers.  Those are the answers I would hope would not dominate this poll.)


----------



## Drowbane

Tried 4e, sticking with D&D (3.5 + house rules)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

226 votes, and there has been a considerable shift in these last few votes:

  Changeover:  31%
  No Changeover:  56%
  Partial Changeover:  14%

  Notable uptick in the Changeover numbers, and a notable drop in the No Changeover numbers (after all, a 4% change in both categories from just 26 votes is considerable.)


----------



## FireLance

On the issue of drawing possibly unsubstantiated conclusions from ENWorld polls, I've noticed on occasion (caveat: observer bias, selective memory, etc.) that polls related to the popularity of 4E tend to get more "pro-4E" responses from the late morning to the late evening where I am (Singapore). This translates to something like GMT 0200 to GMT 1400 (I think).

I wonder if this means, at least among ENWorld members, that 4E is more popular in Europe and Asia than it is in the US?


----------



## Thanee

Definitely "Partial". Some 4E but mostly it's 3.5 still.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## meomwt

Still all 3.5e. No interest in trying 4e.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

FireLance said:


> On the issue of drawing possibly unsubstantiated conclusions from ENWorld polls, I've noticed on occasion (caveat: observer bias, selective memory, etc.) that polls related to the popularity of 4E tend to get more "pro-4E" responses from the late morning to the late evening where I am (Singapore). This translates to something like GMT 0200 to GMT 1400 (I think).
> 
> I wonder if this means, at least among ENWorld members, that 4E is more popular in Europe and Asia than it is in the US?




  That's possible.  Most of the votes in the last 3 hours have been Changeover votes. 
  But I can't confirm that, obviously.  I'd have to run a specific poll for those of our members from eastern Asia and Australia, specifically, to find this out.

  And, hey there, from America.  Happy New Year to you'all, from beyond the World's Greatest Pond!

  (It still astounds me, the Internet.  I'll never truly get used to it, that Distance is not a factor.  I was born before home computers, much less the internet, and guess that's the reason.
  It will never cease to amaze that I can just sit and talk, with people on the other side of our Earth, as if they were in the next room over in the house or apartment.  Cyberspace is just that incredible.  It truly *IS* the 5th Dimension.)


----------



## Plane Sailing

At the moment we play


one 4e campaign
one 3.5e homebrew campaign
one 3.5e Eberron campaign
one Starguild OGL sci-fi campaign

but I decided on 'partial' since the two 3.5e campaigns only run a game about once every 3 months; the 4e game and the Starguild game are the two regulars.

Cheers


----------



## Jack99

Treebore said:


> The misconception is that a tiny geographical area like one city would represent the rest of the country. The reality of this poll is that it is nationwide, and to a point, world wide. IF this poll gets 1,000 responses it will be as viable as the polls you saw on CNN and FOX about who would lead the US next.



Not even close to viable. At least, not if polls in the US are made by anywhere the same rules as we use over here. 



Echohawk said:


> No, I don't think that's true. This is a self-selecting poll, with participants drawn from the category "people who are serious enough about gaming to have an account on a hobby-specific message board". Which means it measures something very different to media polls that have randomly selected participants. (That doesn't make it less interesting, just different.)



Internet polls are by and large fairly useless. Not only is it easy to cheat, but when you have no control over who you ask and who they are, it might as well be random numbers.



Dragonblade said:


> Its been a while since I have taken a statistics class, but not even close. A self-selecting internet poll on one D&D fansite is going to be representative of the buying habits of tens of thousands of gamers? Highly doubtful.



Not only highly doubtful, but not at all. 

It gives us a good idea about how the "regular" posters of ENworld feel. Because lets face it, those who post are those who vote. Question is, are we a good representation of those who play D&D (whatever version) - I doubt it.


----------



## Subumloc

Running and playing 4e only at the moment.


----------



## Shemeska

Dragonblade said:


> EN World is a great community, but it is nowhere near representative of all D&D gamers. The WotC boards dwarf EN World and at this point are probably like 90% 4e players if not higher.




And those boards are in freefall. They've been hemorrhaging traffic since the Gleemax folly, and many of the previously longterm posters during the 3.x period have dropped off the face of the planet to go elsewhere.  I wouldn't assume the WotC boards to be representative of all gamers as a whole either.


----------



## S'mon

That's pretty bad that there are more "Tried and went back" votes than "Complete Changeover" votes - on ENW of all places!  

Edit: And currently over 56% of votes are for the 'no change' categories.   How does that compare to the 2e-3e shift I wonder.


----------



## Psion

Echohawk said:


> It seems reasonable that folks who visit ENWorld, and particularly those who post and respond to polls, are likely to be more serious about D&D (and RPGs in general) than more casual gamers. From that, I don't think it is too much of a leap to guess that folks here are probably also more invested (financially and emotionally) in 3ed than the average gamer. So I'd be surprised if the boards did not reflect more of a bias towards older editions of the game than the "average" gamer.




The problem with this is that most prior polls I have seen here show more of a 60/40 split 4e/3e. So if you are suggesting something about ENWorld's behavior, why didn't it apply (or apply as strongly) before?


----------



## Phaezen

Psion said:


> The problem with this is that most prior polls I have seen here show more of a 60/40 split 4e/3e. So if you are suggesting something about ENWorld's behavior, why didn't it apply (or apply as strongly) before?




Possibly just a holiday variation, many people are away for vacation or even just not on thier pc's as they are not at work and spending time with friends and family this week.

Unlike me who is currently what constitutes for skeleton holiday staff at my company .

Phaezen


----------



## Calico_Jack73

I tried 4E with KotSF but didn't care for it.  Then again I wasn't a huge fan of 3E either so I am stuck with either 1E, 2E, or some other non-D&D fantasy RPG.


----------



## Echohawk

Psion said:


> The problem with this is that most prior polls I have seen here show more of a 60/40 split 4e/3e. So if you are suggesting something about ENWorld's behavior, why didn't it apply (or apply as strongly) before?



Perhaps because those gamers who are reading D&D message boards on December 30th are likely to be even _more_ committed to the hobby than gamers who usually read the boards, and thus even more likely to be invested in older editions...


----------



## dougmander

I voted "all earlier edition play" because that was the closest option. I'm actually running two RISUS campaigns and one Castles and Crusades campaign.


----------



## DaveMage

I find it stunning that over 50% of the poll respondents - on a D&D fan site - are not playing the latest edition.  That's crazy!

Not to mention the high number of people who have apparently tried the edition and went back to an older edtion (or something else).

Wow.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Dragonblade said:


> EN World is a great community, but it is nowhere near representative of all D&D gamers. The WotC boards dwarf EN World and at this point are probably like 90% 4e players if not higher.



That may be, but the wizards boards practically showed 3e players the door. I'm not saying they should continue to spend large amounts of time and effort on old editions, but cramming 3.x into the same forums as 1e/2e was.. I'm suprised they get _any_ 3e traffic.



FireLance said:


> On the issue of drawing possibly unsubstantiated conclusions from ENWorld polls, I've noticed on occasion (caveat: observer bias, selective memory, etc.) that polls related to the popularity of 4E tend to get more "pro-4E" responses from the late morning to the late evening where I am (Singapore). This translates to something like GMT 0200 to GMT 1400 (I think).
> 
> I wonder if this means, at least among ENWorld members, that 4E is more popular in Europe and Asia than it is in the US?



That's an interesting thought.


----------



## darjr

dougmander said:


> I voted "all earlier edition play" because that was the closest option. I'm actually running two RISUS campaigns and one Castles and Crusades campaign.




OK. How many votes are like these? This kind of stuff also makes the poll kinda bogus.


----------



## el-remmen

We did a 4E one-shot and basically mocked it the entire time - it just wasn't our style.

I voted "tried it and went back to earlier edition play".


----------



## Wombat

Briefly tried 4e (three sessions), and it was not to my taste.

Now gleefully playing _Changeling  _


----------



## Aus_Snow

Haven't tried it, and would rather not*. Happily, it looks like I'll never have to, as the conversion rate around here strikes me as staggeringly low.

Yay! 


* And yes, I have actually read it. 'It' being the core three, in this case.


----------



## Tetsubo

3.5 is the last edition of D&D.


----------



## Mallus

I voted 'mostly over'. For the moment, my group's only playing a homebrew 4e campaign, which is taking off like a nerd-filled rocket (is that an oxymoron??). 

In January I hope to restart our long-running 3.5e homebrew campaign, which is entering the 3rd and final act. While I love the campaign, I'm not so enamored of higher-level 3.5e. Converting it to 4e isn't an option --too difficult-- but there's been some talk about switching it to M&M2e, especially if the fantasy sourcebook for it is released soon. 

4e does exactly what I want it to do: provide a fast, easy-to-use, and combat-wise, tactically rich mechanical framework upon which my friends and I can hang their nutty imaginings. While I can understand the whole "lacks flavor" position, it's not something we experience. Flavor is something we bring to table. In spades.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Tetsubo said:


> 3.5 is the last edition of D&D.




That's pretty much uncalled for.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dragonblade said:


> The WotC boards dwarf EN World and at this point are probably like 90% 4e players if not higher.




I can't seem to find any 3.5 fans on the NASCAR forums, either.


----------



## Pseudopsyche

Jack99 said:


> It gives us a good idea about how the "regular" posters of ENworld feel. Because lets face it, those who post are those who vote. Question is, are we a good representation of those who play D&D (whatever version) - I doubt it.



Yes, I had assumed from the beginning that the purpose of this poll was to gauge the preferences of EN World members (who participate in the general forum).  Clearly, any attempt to generalize the results to the population of gamers across the world is dubious at best.

I'm actually more interested in the preferences of our community, anyway.  It helps to know your audience, and it helps to know the leanings of my single greatest source of D&D information!  (For example, I may make more of an effort to specify what edition I have in mind when I toss around terminology such as "saving throw" and "diagonal movement".)  I have been surprised to see that 4E support is not as widespread as I had assumed, but as others have pointed out, it seems natural that a community of dedicated gamers would have some investment in the previous editions that held sway for decades.

That said, do you think that the biases mentioned so far, including self-selection and the holiday timing, are significant?  My hunch is that the current percentages are probably fairly close to the true percentages of active EN World members in this forum.


----------



## Maggan

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I can't seem to find any 3.5 fans on the NASCAR forums, either.




I take it they're big on 4e, then.

/M


----------



## Ahnehnois

I took a pretty good look at the 4e books but haven't played it and am not terribly eager to do so. I finished up a 3.5 campaign and ran a little CoC d20 and hopefully a little BSG.



> Yes, I had assumed from the beginning that the purpose of this poll was to gauge the preferences of EN World members (who participate in the general forum). Clearly, any attempt to generalize the results to the population of gamers across the world is dubious at best.



Agreed. This poll unscientifically measures the preferences of regular posters at these boards. That is a big deal on some level, because these are big message boards. But it's not market research. In any case, even highly 'scientific' surveys are hardly perfect. Take this poll for what it's worth.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Pseudopsyche said:
			
		

> That said, do you think that the biases mentioned so far, including self-selection and the holiday timing, are significant?  My hunch is that the current percentages are probably fairly close to the true percentages of active EN World members in this forum.




I'll start with the standard caveat that all internet polls are craptacular when it comes to providing any meaningful data. (And yes, Psion, this even applies to polls that display results you don't agree with.)

That said, I bet this poll _is_ fairly accurate when judging the leanings of the EN World community.  I suspect this community is the second toughest* one to crack to get people to go with 4e. EN World was, and in many ways still is, a site founded on 3e and dedicated to 3e gaming. 

We've seen some astounding numbers from Morrus about new registrations since the 4e launch - something like 20% of our community has joined in the past six months, whereas we've been around 8+ years. I'm sure many of those folks are hapless 4e geeks looking for a home. Whether they stuck around after witnessing the Edition War...who can say?

What is interesting to me is that there seems to be a large portion of gamers who want nothing to do with 3e, yet do not like 4e either. And these folks are heading off into "aberrant" gaming systems.  Probably good for our overall hobby, and yet bad for WotC...which could, in turn, be bad for our overall hobby. Hmm...circular logic. The whole thing confuses me.

Anyway, you know what they say about death, taxes, nerd rage, and internet polls.

WP


* The toughest community for 4e to penetrate would be those hardy souls at Dragonsfoot.


----------



## Mallus

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Anyway, you know what they say about death...



That it's inevitable?



> ...taxes...



That they're used to purchase civilization?



> ...nerd rage...



That it's funny to watch, but in a sad kind of way?



> ...and internet polls.



Wait, what _do_ people say about internet polls?


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> The toughest community for 4e to penetrate would be those hardy souls at Dragonsfoot.




You know what, I'm going to stoop to a new internet low and actually argue with myself.  After re-thinking that statement, I'd like to disagree. 

Completely anecdotal here, but there seems to be a decent pro-4e crowd amongst the BECM crew and, to a lesser extent, the 1E AD&D crew.  I contend this is due to the similarities between 4e and those systems - mainly the "feel" of the games around the table.

Huh. I actually can be wrong from time to time. Who knew?

Off to the NASCAR forums -

WP


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Mallus said:
			
		

> Wait, what _do_ people say about internet polls?




I'm not sure. My wit ended before I could add to that enigmatic ending you quote in my former post.

I dig the Burne story hour, btw. Been reading since Destan pointed there in the days of old.

WP


----------



## Darkwolf71

Mallus said:


> Wait, what _do_ people say about internet polls?



Well, that depends on how the polls line up with their preconcieved opinions, doesn't it.


----------



## miscreationist

I voted Slight Changeover.  I previously voted No Change.  I'm DMing a modified 3.5e game and playing in one as well.  I expect these to continue for some time still because everyone enjoys them immensely.  Any future 3.5 style game I run will likely be more heavily modified to include elements of Pathfinder/Book of Experimental Might Series/Book of Iron Might.  I really would like to run Castles & Crusades to give it a go as well.

I have gathered a group that I have started DMing 4e for that currently has two players that have played before and the other three have no previous roleplaying game experience. Running it was smooth, but the players haven't had enough time to really understand the mechanics very well yet.

Ask me again in 6 months and I may have a different response.  I haven't played enough of 4e to say I want to switch to it completely.  I may know more after a few sessions have been completed.  I have elements that I like and dislike about 3.x and 4, but I'm willing to give it a shot in play to see if it works for my group.  If it doesn't work out, I may just use some elements that I do like in a 3.x style game.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Ahnehnois said:


> This poll unscientifically measures the preferences of regular posters at these boards. That is a big deal on some level, because these are big message boards. But it's not market research.




I'd like to see the results from a similar poll taken when ENWorld launched, if they exist. Six months after the launch of 3e, how many went back to previous editions?

(I was not an early 3e adopter, either... I was extremely skeptical, even hostile to 3e.)



> In any case, even highly 'scientific' surveys are hardly perfect. Take this poll for what it's worth.




It's a weather vane.

No matter how you spin it, failing to grab over 50% of ENworld ain't exactly a good thing. These are the grassroots. Now, if suspicions are correct, and they are rebuilding a new base with a more accessible 4e (by design), that's fine by me.


----------



## Jack99

Pseudopsyche said:


> Yes, I had assumed from the beginning that the purpose of this poll was to gauge the preferences of EN World members (who participate in the general forum).  Clearly, any attempt to generalize the results to the population of gamers across the world is dubious at best.
> 
> I'm actually more interested in the preferences of our community, anyway.  It helps to know your audience, and it helps to know the leanings of my single greatest source of D&D information!  (For example, I may make more of an effort to specify what edition I have in mind when I toss around terminology such as "saving throw" and "diagonal movement".)  I have been surprised to see that 4E support is not as widespread as I had assumed, but as others have pointed out, it seems natural that a community of dedicated gamers would have some investment in the previous editions that held sway for decades.
> 
> That said, do you think that the biases mentioned so far, including self-selection and the holiday timing, are significant?  My hunch is that the current percentages are probably fairly close to the true percentages of active EN World members in this forum.




Yes, I wasn't implying that the poll was useless, I also find it interesting to know what the people I "talk" to a lot play. I just mean that trying to extrapolate the meager and highly biased data to the world-wide audience of D&D is not the greatest of ideas, at least not if one wants a correct approximation. 

But yeah, it's probably not far off, if we consider the regular posters. It's a pity, but there isn't much to do about it.



Wisdom Penalty said:


> I'll start with the standard caveat that all internet polls are craptacular when it comes to providing any meaningful data. (And yes, Psion, this even applies to polls that display results you don't agree with.)
> 
> That said, I bet this poll _is_ fairly accurate when judging the leanings of the EN World community.  I suspect this community is the second toughest* one to crack to get people to go with 4e. EN World was, and in many ways still is, a site founded on 3e and dedicated to 3e gaming.
> 
> We've seen some astounding numbers from Morrus about new registrations since the 4e launch - something like 20% of our community has joined in the past six months, whereas we've been around 8+ years. I'm sure many of those folks are hapless 4e geeks looking for a home. Whether they stuck around after witnessing the Edition War...who can say?
> 
> Snip..
> 
> * The toughest community for 4e to penetrate would be those hardy souls at Dragonsfoot.



I think the Paizo enclave might be even harder to crack. 4e fans seem few and far between over there, sadly. I really enjoyed those boards until 4e was released, anyway.


> We've seen some astounding numbers from Morrus about new registrations since the 4e launch - something like 20% of our community has joined in the past six months, whereas we've been around 8+ years. I'm sure many of those folks are hapless 4e geeks looking for a home. Whether they stuck around after witnessing the Edition War...who can say?



Just wanted to quote this again, because it's quite amazing (the original thread is in the meta forum) and I do not think enough people know this.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

We are still playing a 3.5 Ptolus campaign. After that we are going to a HERO System Champions game. We have always alternated between D&D and HERO so going there is not an indication of giving up on D&D. 4E however is nowhere on the horizon and its prospect is not talked about at all at the game table. 

Now all I have to do is head over to the NASCAR forums and talk Indy Car. Its pretty much the same thing, right?


----------



## Mallus

Wisdom Penalty said:


> I dig the Burne story hour, btw. Been reading since Destan pointed there in the days of old.



Thanks. That's the beloved 3.5e campaign in need of finishing in the new year. I'm going to try to pick up writing the Story Hour now that Burne --Rolzup-- is too busy for it.  



			
				Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Well, that depends on how the polls line up with their preconcieved opinions, doesn't it.



Sure does.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Brown Jenkin said:


> Now all I have to do is head over to the NASCAR forums and talk Indy Car. Its pretty much the same thing, right?




How _DARE _you improve upon my facile analogy!


----------



## Quantarum

All 4E, we're done with 3.5 for good, even the common hold books have hit the shelves at the local used book store. One of my players wants to run a superhero campaign, but he can't decide between M&M and Champions.

-Q.


----------



## Alikar

4E all the way. The only people that I know of who are running a 3.5 game are going to upgrade to 4th edition when their current game is over.


----------



## FallenTabris

I'm fourth edition all the way now for D&D.  It took a bit to convert over my play group but most of them were casual enough to not be invested in anything but having a good time.  One player nearly had a fit over the 'downgrading' of wizards.  Yet he also was greatly pleased in that he'd never run out of spells.  I ran them through most of Keep on the Shadowfell before scheduling conflicts put it on hold.  I'm about to pick back up the game with them a few rooms away from the BBEG.  

I don't get this high percentage of those who've tried 4e and changed right back.  It boggles my mind.  I always thought the so called Edition Wars were merely fought by vocal minorities.


----------



## Darkwolf71

FallenTabris said:


> I don't get this high percentage of those who've tried 4e and changed right back.  It boggles my mind.  I always thought the so called Edition Wars were merely fought by vocal minorities.




Well you can never please everybody, and with all the drastic changes made to the game some folks were bound to be put out by it. Even some who may have wanted to like it. Although the numbers _are_ suprising, even to me.


----------



## Grimstaff

I'd be interested in a poll specifically targeted towards how many folks changed over from 3.5 to 4E (or not) as opposed to "earlier editions". Folks already playing 1E, 2E, C&C, True20, can kind of skew these results, as I'm sure the intention here is to get some sort of guage on the success of 4E so far.


----------



## Echohawk

FallenTabris said:


> I don't get this high percentage of those who've tried 4e and changed right back.  It boggles my mind.  I always thought the so called Edition Wars were merely fought by vocal minorities.



I suspect that a number of the "No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play" respondents may have chosen "No Change: I am currently only playing an earlier version, but have tried 4E" if that subtly different option was available.


----------



## DaveMage

FallenTabris said:


> I don't get this high percentage of those who've tried 4e and changed right back.  It boggles my mind.  I always thought the so called Edition Wars were merely fought by vocal minorities.




If all you have run is Keep on the Shadowfell, then you haven't played the game for a real shakedown period yet (IMO).  (It's likely still new and shiny to you.)  Some people, after playing it a while, have found 4E to be lacking for various reasons.  On the other hand, there are those who have fallen in love with it, so the reason you don't understand might be simply a lack of experience with the game.  

Many of the frustrations/complaints I have seen from people that have played it are:

1) Sameness of classes
2) Combats are repetitive (same actions by the same PCs each time)
3) Combat grinds (combat outcome is known long before the end of it)
4) Wizards lack the appeal of the wizards of past editions
5) Not all that was core in 3.x is core in 4E  ("Core" being defined as the PH, DMG, and MM)

Of course, there are those which have played and have no problems with any of the above, but for those who are not playing anymore, these are some of the reasons often mentioned.


----------



## Jack99

FallenTabris said:


> I don't get this high percentage of those who've tried 4e and changed right back.  It boggles my mind.  I always thought the so called Edition Wars were merely fought by vocal minorities.




It could still very well be vocal minorities. They just happen to hang out here. After all, the Interweb is a great place if you want to express your feelings on a certain subject.


----------



## Korgoth

I bought KotSF and the 4E starter set and have wasted hours of my life reading EN World regarding 4E. I have never been interested enough to try it... I disagree with practically every design decision in the game.

I voted No Change: All earlier edition play (I play Classic and run EPT-1975).


----------



## howandwhy99

No change.  The only good changes in 4th Edition were ones we had already been using in our D&D games.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Anectdotal evidence shows that polls that mark who voted, preventing ballot stuffing by logging out favor 4E, and polls that don't prevent it disfavor 4e.  Note the search cloud spamming that goes on too.


----------



## DaveyJones

Echohawk said:


> I suspect that a number of the "No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play" respondents may have chosen "No Change: I am currently only playing an earlier version, but have tried 4E" if that subtly different option was available.



 this would have been me.


----------



## Treebore

Jack99 said:


> Not even close to viable. At least, not if polls in the US are made by anywhere the same rules as we use over here.
> 
> 
> Internet polls are by and large fairly useless. Not only is it easy to cheat, but when you have no control over who you ask and who they are, it might as well be random numbers.
> 
> 
> Not only highly doubtful, but not at all.
> 
> It gives us a good idea about how the "regular" posters of ENworld feel. Because lets face it, those who post are those who vote. Question is, are we a good representation of those who play D&D (whatever version) - I doubt it.




Oh please! Your just showing why people don't understand statistics. 

This poll is no different than going to a convention of gamers and asking them to participate in a poll. Its no different than calling registered voters and asking them to participate in a poll. Meaningless? Nope.

Internet polling useless? Well thats news to a number of marketing outlets.

This poll is just as viable as going onto a college and asking students there what they think of the college, or going to a mall and asking what people think of the mall, or going to a city and asking what people think of living in that city. This poll is very viable.


----------



## Imaro

Charwoman Gene said:


> Anectdotal evidence shows that polls that mark who voted, preventing ballot stuffing by logging out favor 4E, and polls that don't prevent it disfavor 4e. Note the search cloud spamming that goes on too.




Uhm, do you have any proof of this...because if not, all I'm hearing is... "If the poll doesn't agree with the game I like the most, then it must be being filled out by liars and frauds...but when it does agree with what I feel, yeah it's honest folk filling out that poll now."  I mean this is a pretty big (though subtle) accusation, and I'd like to see anything that backs it up.


----------



## Treebore

Imaro said:


> Uhm, do you have any proof of this...because if not, all I'm hearing is... "If the poll doesn't agree with the game I like the most, then it must be being filled out by liars and frauds...but when it does agree with what I feel, yeah it's honest folk filling out that poll now."  I mean this is a pretty big (though subtle) accusation, and I'd like to see anything that backs it up.




Plus, like I pointed out before, there are formula's you apply when possible voting multiple times is a possibility. Like the phone polls of registered voters, people were getting called at their "contact" numbers which included home numbers and cell phones. Pretty much any confounding factor can be accounted for in statistical data and get within a 3% of accuracy, just like the registered voter polls were. You just have to be aware of the problem and apply the right adjusting formula.


----------



## MacMathan

Started a fresh 4e campaign to try the rules out and our group has loved it!

We are now in the process of converting over a long running 3e campaign to 4e.

4e has even brought some players back to our group who had gotten burnt out on 3/3.5.

Our group as a whole has always moved forward with new editions.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Treebore said:


> This poll is very viable.




If your question is "How is the transition from 3E to 4E going _for ENWorlders_" then, yes, this is a very viable poll.


----------



## DaveMage

Imaro said:


> Uhm, do you have any proof of this...because if not, all I'm hearing is... "If the poll doesn't agree with the game I like the most, then it must be being filled out by liars and frauds...but when it does agree with what I feel, yeah it's honest folk filling out that poll now."  I mean this is a pretty big (though subtle) accusation, and I'd like to see anything that backs it up.




And since this poll has no impact on anything, why would anyone even bother "stuffing the box"?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Almost 400 votes in the first 24 hours.  A very quick, strong response to the poll.  (375 votes, to be precise, as I write this.)

  We have:

  Complete Changeover:  30.38%
  No Change:  57.53%
  Partial Changeover:  12.09%

  A comment, if I may:

  I did not specify whether games like Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, computer games like World of Warcraft, or other online games, counted as 'earlier editions' of D&D, or if they did not.
  I left that up to those polled to decide.  I am guessing (but just guessing, only) that the majority of those polled do not consider any of these to be any edition of D&D (except, perhaps, Pathfinder, but again I don't know.)

  The point is, most of these people, I am guessing, also play some form of D&D, be it editions OD&D, 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, or 4th.
  They may play 'pure' D&D, only once a year, but that still counts.  Even if they spend 99% of their time playing something else, and 1% D&D, it still counts.  I can't create a poll that grants greater weight for those who play D&D more - it is beyond the capacity of any poll I could create to do that.

  So, as someone above said, take this poll for what it's worth (not much.)
  It's just a poll.  An incomplete, shallow, poll.

  Remember something.
  There is more gaming material available now, than at any time in the history of the Hobby.
  This is partially due to the simple fact that more material is always being produced, and partially due to the fact that older material has been heavily put online and made available to the public (with the notable exception of items under heavy copyright where the copyright problems haven't yet been worked out, such as with Dragon Magazine ... and even there, large parts of these publications have been made available.)
  And there are more alternate games than ever before.  Same reason.
  There are more computer alternatives than ever before.
  There are more card alternatives than ever before.
  All the games that preceeded D&D are still around.

  Yes, I realize that officially, Hasbro only supports 4E, and Paizo supports Pathfinder, and so on, but ... all this great stuff is out there, and you can get most of it at bargain basement prices, or download it for a small fee online.

  It's a veritable Paradise of gaming products for the gamer out there.

  I once tried to type (yes, type) down all the spells, from all the gaming supplements that were 'official AD&D' products (I had to type a lot of spells repeatedly, as they came in enough flavors to be comparible to Friendly's Ice Cream - Dragon Magazine versions, 1E versions, 2E versions, a 2nd or 3rd 2E version, the version from the 2E Complete Wizard's Spell Compendium version ...)
  I couldn't hope to try that stunt now.  Take Magic Missile.  Dragon, OD&D, 1E, 2E (and there are so many variants of Magic Missile in 2E, I couldn't shake a stick at them all), 3E, 3.5, and 4E (there is an equivalent there.)
  And that's just the so called official stuff.  There are spells from supplements ranging from Gaming Aids (those very ancient supplements) to the modern internet updates.  And a huge load of spells from the works of Monte Cook and others.  And different approaches to spells (so if you use a spell from this system in that system, you must adapt it accordingly - for example, the 2E Mantle spell (very complicated spell) into 3.0 format, or Magic Missile from 3.5 into 4th Edition.

  What goes for spells, goes for everything else.  Stats, classes, special classes (from the Witch of Dragon #43 - I think that was it) to the Loresraat Student (White Dwarf, early magazine) to the Bladesinger (2E or 3E version) to the Dwarven Battlerager (compliments, really, of Salvatore) to the Frenzied Berserker (someone at the company remembered the Death Master, and decided it was time for a long overdue revenge!), to the Initiate of the Seven Veils (wasn't it the dream of every wizard to, ultimately, have their own personal Prismatic Armor?) to all the new classes of 4E.
  And we have more items, more skills (to use the items with), or the 4E system where you don't need either (you can just do it - you're competent enough to handle a 10 foot pole!), or if you would really like, very detailed skill sets ala ICE or D&D systems similar to that (some calculus required here ...)
  We have feats, more feats, yet *more* feats, special feats, exalted feats, vile feats, Arcana Unearthed feats, Kalamar feats, Dragonlance feats, a ton of feats from magazines, feats made up by players and submitted online, feats galore (heck, we even have a Feat Master, and probably, several variations of *that* monstrosity as well!)

  We have a veritable Niagra Falls of stuff.  We have stuff coming out our ears.  I have this huge Historical Library of D&D items, and it doesn't come close to being complete (I'd have to be a millionaire, to buy everything!  Maybe a multi-millionaire.  But with the new downloads, I can buy vast amounts of stuff that otherwise would have been too expensive for me.)

  Don't you see, people?  We don't have it worse than ever before.  We have it BETTER than ever before.  We have the most anyone has ever had.  I could not have put this poll back up in the 80s (considered the Golden Age of Gaming!) because so little was available back then!

  And heck ... regardless of what system you like, you can mix and match.
  Love 4E, but want older elements?  Create a hybrid.  They did this with 3.5 and 3.0 and Arcana Unearthed and other products.  They did it with 2E and 1E (they did it, a lot, with 2E and ... 2E ... lol.)  They even did it with 1E/2E and OD&D.

  If I could somehow create an Everlist - a complete book of every spell available from every edition of D&D, along with every spell from every magazine, every spell from the older supplements (like the Role-Aids supplements), every spell from alternate systems like Arcana Unearthed and Pathfinder, every spell submitted by players ... I think I would have something on the order of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.  If it were one book, it would be 6 feet tall, 6 feet wide, 2 feet thick, and in 6 point font (helvetica.)
  You know what the greatest thing is?  One of these days, they will have *that* book, only online.  Weightless, no bulk, and able to use a search engine to find what I'm looking for instantly.  Reasonably cheap, too. (Better than an artifact/relic to a D&D wizard, no?)


----------



## JeffB

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Completely anecdotal here, but there seems to be a decent pro-4e crowd amongst the BECM crew and, to a lesser extent, the 1E AD&D crew.  I contend this is due to the similarities between 4e and those systems - mainly the "feel" of the games around the table.





FWIW- I'm a 4E fan, and also hang out at DF, OD&D Discussion, S&W forums, and a few other "old school-ish" boards like Necromancer games & troll lord Games (which are pretty much anti-4E as well). I'm a big fan of OD&D (LBB) as well as B/X  (moldvbay/cook/marsh) and ran a S&W game for some old friends recently.  I get a LBB/B/X vibe from 4E, and have since day one. YMMV.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

JeffB said:


> FWIW- I'm a 4E fan, and also hang out at DF, OD&D Discussion, S&W forums, and a few other "old school-ish" boards like Necromancer games & troll lord Games (which are pretty much anti-4E as well). I'm a big fan of OD&D (LBB) as well as B/X  (moldvbay/cook/marsh) and ran a S&W game for some old friends recently.  I get a LBB/B/X vibe from 4E, and have since day one. YMMV.




  Do you have links to these boards?  If yes, is it allowed by ENWorld's rules for you to put them up here?

  I'm curious.   They would bring back old, and pleasant, memories, I think, if I were able to go and browse them.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:


> And since this poll has no impact on anything, why would anyone even bother "stuffing the box"?




Nerd rage.

I would like to add, I find it hilarious that folks think the responses of the internet's largest/best D&D community are meaningless. There is no other forum with the cred of ENworld.


----------



## JeffB

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Do you have links to these boards?  If yes, is it allowed by ENWorld's rules for you to put them up here?
> 
> I'm curious.   They would bring back old, and pleasant, memories, I think, if I were able to go and browse them.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> Edena_of_Neith




If it's aproblem I guess the moderators will let me know  

Warning- 3E and 4E discussion is off limits-period- at Dragonsfoot

The ODD discussion boards are strictly Original D&D (little brown books), with the occasional 1E/OSRIC or Holmes Basic threads  and some early TSR product discussion (John Carter, EPT, etc).  This is also the home of Fight ON! magazine- great community here witha  wealth of knowledge.

OD&D discussion

Swords & Wizardry is a OD&D retro-clone with a small friendly community that discusses roughly the same material as the OD&D boards.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Thanks a lot, Jeff.  I appreciate it.  Bookmarked them all.

  Any 1E, 2E, and 3E forums?  (including, 3.0 ... 3.0 was only the Official game for a few short years, and I am merely curious if any boards are dedicated to it.)


----------



## JeffB

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Thanks a lot, Jeff.  I appreciate it.  Bookmarked them all.
> 
> Any 1E, 2E, and 3E forums?  (including, 3.0 ... 3.0 was only the Official game for a few short years, and I am merely curious if any boards are dedicated to it.)




You're very welcome  I know of no specific 1/2/3/E forum, though the Necromancer Games forum is friendly to all 3 versions for the most part (about the same as here @ ENworld). Goodman games covers 1/3/4E as well as C&C. Troll Lord Games is friendly to anything save perhaps 4E and especially Gygax Games discussion 

The Necro boards are full of good people as is OD&D discussion and the S&W boards- those are my most traveled sites and my reccomendations.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Again, thank you very much, Jeff.  Cheers to you, sir.

  Yours Truly
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Treebore

Merlin's Shadow said:


> If your question is "How is the transition from 3E to 4E going _for ENWorlders_" then, yes, this is a very viable poll.




IT is also applicable to the general market. IF you don't wish to believe that, its fine. It isn't like anyone is trying to bust up our respective parties. I worked very intensely for 2 years (1998 to 1999) with statistical data, a job I got  based on over 20 college credit hours I have in statistics. So I know I can turn this poll into valid statistical data with a very high degree of accuracy, and what I know about myself and my abilities is all that matters to me on this issue.

If people want to think otherwise, thats fine. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.


----------



## Jack99

Treebore said:


> Oh please! Your just showing why people don't understand statistics.



Where is Hong when you need him..



> This poll is no different than going to a convention of gamers and asking them to participate in a poll. Its no different than calling registered voters and asking them to participate in a poll. Meaningless? Nope.



Both polls are finds if you want a poll on how the people attending the convention or how registered pollers think about a subject think. If you try to use the result of either poll on a nation-wide basis, you are screwed. At least over here. I must profess I can't speak of the laws and customs in the states. I hope they are indeed better than you seem to think they are.



> Internet polling useless? Well thats news to a number of marketing outlets.



Internet polling is not useless, but this kind, with no control of who votes what and the possibility to vote multiple times the same way, yes, it's pretty useless.



> This poll is just as viable as going onto a college and asking students there what they think of the college, or going to a mall and asking what people think of the mall, or going to a city and asking what people think of living in that city. This poll is very viable.



Once again, if we translate the result by what you just said, this poll is viable in finding out which edition ENworld voters (presumably the regulars) play. Ergo it is arguably of very little value in determining which edition the D&D community plays the most.


----------



## Treebore

Edena,

Just to let you know, even though my game is Castles and Crusades I count it as D&D because I still use my 3E, 2E, 1E, and my Rules Compendium, and have even stole a rule or two from 4E. So to me I look at it as not only playing D&D, but playing all of D&D.

Yeah, I may use the SIEGE engine as my core mechanic, but when you pull monsters, magic times, "house rules", spells, etc... straight from D&D books, I still consider it D&D.


----------



## Treebore

Jack99 said:


> Where is Hong when you need him..
> 
> 
> Both polls are finds if you want a poll on how the people attending the convention or how registered pollers think about a subject think. If you try to use the result of either poll on a nation-wide basis, you are screwed. At least over here. I must profess I can't speak of the laws and customs in the states. I hope they are indeed better than you seem to think they are.
> 
> Internet polling is not useless, but this kind, with no control of who votes what and the possibility to vote multiple times the same way, yes, it's pretty useless.
> 
> Once again, if we translate the result by what you just said, this poll is viable in finding out which edition ENworld voters (presumably the regulars) play. Ergo it is arguably of very little value in determining which edition the D&D community plays the most.




Just read my post prior to yours, I don't need Hong to justify my knowledge, experience, or understanding about statistical analysis. Plus, like Hong, we heard from our professors about the great arguments between statistical analysts about what can and cannot be made into valid interpretations. So even the so called experts cannot agree, when you get down to it.

Nothing new there, the experts argue about who is right all the time.

So you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I do.


----------



## La Bete

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Nerd rage.
> 
> I would like to add, I find it hilarious that folks think the responses of the internet's largest/best D&D community are meaningless. There is no other forum with the cred of ENworld.




I think "meaningless" is probably a bit much. However, the self-selecting nature of the poll severely limits the randomness of the sample. 

The result is that the poll can be used at best as a broad brush view of what enworlders are playing, who are a (large) subset of all d&d messageboard dwellers, who are a (unknown) subset of all d&d players.

To parapharase one of the mods - the polls are good for entertainment, but probably not such a good thing to base a financial decision on..

---

As for the poll itself - have finished my 3.5 campaign off with a great finale, and happily moved on to running 4E. Have even picked up a new player who's never played any roleplaying games before, and he's finding it pretty straighforward.


----------



## Mistwell

Treebore said:


> IT is also applicable to the general market. IF you don't wish to believe that, its fine. It isn't like anyone is trying to bust up our respective parties. I worked very intensely for 2 years (1998 to 1999) with statistical data, a job I got  based on over 20 college credit hours I have in statistics. So I know I can turn this poll into valid statistical data with a very high degree of accuracy, and what I know about myself and my abilities is all that matters to me on this issue.
> 
> If people want to think otherwise, thats fine. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.




It's a self-selected non-random internet poll.  Any claim that such types of internet polls are accurate is not a good claim.  It's not about quantity, it's about the non-random sampling nature of it.  It's useful for entertainment purposes only


----------



## garyh

Mistwell said:


> It's an internet poll.  Any claim that internet polls are accurate is not a good claim.  It's not about quantity, it's about the non-random sampling nature of it.  It's a self-selected poll with no checks and balances on it, and therefore useful for entertainment purposes only




Exactly.  To put it clearer, if you posted the same poll on Dragonsfoot, Paizo, WotC, and RPGNet, I'm sure you'd get different results on all of them (which would also be interesting, to be sure).  Obviously, they couldn't all be right.  And the problem would be that each of those forums tend to attract a different type of poster with different opinions.  EN World, having been created and spent 8 years as a 3.x board, probably skew towards 3.x more than the general populace.  Paizo would skews towards Pathfinder, Dragonsfoot towards the older editions, etc.


----------



## Mistwell

Treebore said:


> Just read my post prior to yours, I don't need Hong to justify my knowledge, experience, or understanding about statistical analysis. Plus, like Hong, we heard from our professors about the great arguments between statistical analysts about what can and cannot be made into valid interpretations. So even the so called experts cannot agree, when you get down to it.
> 
> Nothing new there, the experts argue about who is right all the time.
> 
> So you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I do.




Tell you what, run this exact same poll on Paizo's boards until you get the same number of votes.  Then run it on WOTCs boards, and RPG.net.  When you see it gives you an incredibly drastically different result depending on the board you run the poll on, maybe you will admit that this kind of poll is not a representative sample of 4e in general.

[Edit - Ninja'ed by garyh!]


----------



## Scribble

I don't think the answers here are meaningless, you just have to take who and where you're asking the question into account.

If I were to say I polled several people as to whether or not they had murdered someone in the past, and then said 95% of the people polled said yes... Could I then say 95% of Americans have murdered someone in the past? (When I conducted my poll in a federal prison death row wing?)

Similarily I think if you ask the people on the Steve Jackson forums if they prefer GURPS to d20 you'll probably get a much different answer then if you ask the same question on the WoTC boards.

It might be a "valid" poll sure, it just might not be valid for the question it's being used to answer.


----------



## La Bete

Mistwell said:


> [Edit - Ninja'ed by garyh!]





It's not your night - ninjaed twice in a row!


----------



## garyh

Mistwell said:


> [Edit - Ninja'ed by garyh!]




I'm sneaky for being 6'7".

Also, I'm Jewish (although not the Old World-style Jew as in the picture), so the picture is doubly appropriate.  Where is that from?

[/tangent]


----------



## Treebore

Mistwell said:


> Tell you what, run this exact same poll on Paizo's boards until you get the same number of votes.  Then run it on WOTCs boards, and RPG.net.  When you see it gives you an incredibly drastically different result depending on the board you run the poll on, maybe you will admit that this kind of poll is not a representative sample of 4e in general.
> 
> [Edit - Ninja'ed by garyh!]





OK, I see, you don't understand confounds and tools/formula's available for statistical analysis that correct/account for these confounds. Well I do.


----------



## garyh

Treebore said:


> OK, I see, you don't understand confounds and tools/formula's available for statistical analysis that correct/account for these confounds. Well I do.




Please, explain then.  I took a year of stats and a year of econometrics as an undergrad, and another year of survey and research design in grad school, and I'm not aware of any way to compensate for the inherent problems of a self-selected poll.  Maybe I'm just being forgetful.

I have NO problem with the whole "1,000 people to predict the entire US" angle.  It's just that the 1,000 have to be a random sample of the entire population you're claiming to project to make any sense.  Asking 1,000 people in San Francisco versus asking 1,000 people in Salt Lake City is obviously going to give you a different picture of things, I think you'll agree.


----------



## The Green Adam

*As usual, I don't see a choice for me...*

I must be the weirdest gamer on the face of the Earth as everytime a poll is made I find myself unable to reply. There is almost never a choice fitting me and my group. 

Played 4E, not converting, not playing any edition of D&D anymore.

Unless I'm struck with an overpowering wave of nostalgia or a very select, very small group of people ask me to run it as a favor, I'm pretty much done with D&D. I will play periodically in any of the various pre-4E versions, but 4E itself, the attitude of WotC/Hasbro, the way it has divided the community and a dozen other reasons just turned me off and made me look at other game. As it turns out, they were games I've always liked better anyway. 

Maybe when 5e comes out I'll give it a whirl but that's about it. 

AD


----------



## stonegod

Still play 3.5 and 4E about equally.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Imaro said:


> Uhm, do you have any proof of this...




No, it's anecdotal.  My Edition Idol Poll skewed WAY against 4e the first time I ran it, without it r3ecording who voted where.

It was way more even without that.

This effect could be due to many many things.

The "I don't give a rats ass about edition polls" factor is also storong.  if we could somehow p[oll the populatiopn of enworlders who don't vote in polls... maybe they are %75 4e!


----------



## Maggan

Mistwell said:


> It's a self-selected non-random internet poll.




And it is also wide open to manipulation. This in itself invalidates any analysis made, without also doing a check on possible multiple votings.

All it takes is one person who's decided to skew the results. I've seen it happen on other sites, where edition wars were conducted via polls and where both sides would hammer the preferred option.

In one place it got so bad that they had to remove the option of doing polls.

So, since the interest in this poll runs so high, I suggest it be redone as a public poll.

/M


----------



## Jasperak

Maggan said:


> So, since the interest in this poll runs so high, I suggest it be redone as a public poll.
> 
> /M




I second that and wish any poll that had anything to do with 3e and 4e would be public.


----------



## Tuft

Jasperak said:


> I second that and wish any poll that had anything to do with 3e and 4e would be public.




There are different kind of polls? What are the difference?


----------



## DaveMage

Tuft said:


> There are different kind of polls? What are the difference?




On a public poll you can see who voted and count the respondents by name rather than have "guests" vote that could skew the numbers behind the scenes.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Of course that doesn't stop Alt Boy! the classic ban-averting troll from showing up.

Or Sock puppets.  And it comes with a pressure to go along with groupthink.


----------



## Jasperak

Tuft said:


> There are different kind of polls? What are the difference?




Public polls allow you to see who voted for whatever option.


----------



## Korgoth

Charwoman Gene said:


> Of course that doesn't stop Alt Boy! the classic ban-averting troll from showing up.
> 
> Or Sock puppets.  And it comes with a pressure to go along with groupthink.




The nerdrage is strong in this one.

Really. If this poll showed that everyone on EN World had switched to 4E you wouldn't be complaining about it.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Really. If this poll showed that everyone on EN World had switched to 4E you wouldn't be complaining about it.




I know I would, and I'm a 4e fan. I feel it a solemn duty of my life's work to pop into all polls on EN World, regardless of results or question, and state how ludicrous they are.*

(Of course, I still vote in them. Chalk it up with Oprah, Skittles, and N'Sync in my list o' guilty pleasures.)

WP


* This is normally followed shortly thereafter with someone (usually Psion) mentioning that I wouldn't pop in if the poll results favored my own vote.**

** This is usually followed by me being an ass in my response.***

*** This is usually followed by someone (most often Rel) suspending my account for some time.****

**** And, finally, _this_ is usually followed by me watching Oprah on mute, stuffing myself with Skittles, and listening to some of the low-down, funky, melancholic rifts of N'Sync.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Korgoth said:


> Really. If this poll showed that everyone on EN World had switched to 4E you wouldn't be complaining about it.




Nuh-uh.

Why are you defending it so vigorously?  Are you invested in the result yourself?


----------



## mmu1

Charwoman Gene said:


> Nuh-uh.
> 
> Why are you defending it so vigorously?  Are you invested in the result yourself?




Yeah, I see what you're doing there and it _was_ well done, really - but you're the one who started this. Again, good try at deflecting, though.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

With around 425 votes in, the results:

  Changeover:  31%
  No Changover:  57%
  Partial Changeover:  12%

  Another comment (laughs lightly)

  When I had the first Changeover Poll, the Edition Wars uproar came into it.
  No Edition Wars this time.  Everyone has been extremely courteous, extraordinarily polite and congenial, especially compared to the first poll (So much so, that it is like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood in comparison.  I like this!  )

  But there is something new, and I shall give it a name ... Poll Wars!  : )

  But it is not something I think anyone in the Galaxy should be concerned about, any more than they should be concerned about the results of this poll.

  EDIT:  Eastern Asia and Australia are comimg in for their second round at this poll, and they seem pro-Changeover, so those rooting for Changeover, watch your numbers rise.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Tuft said:


> There are different kind of polls? What are the difference?




A public poll displays the screen names for all voters and which choice they voted for.

EDIT: I suppose I should check the _rest_ of the thread before answering questions.


----------



## Jasperak

Merlin's Shadow said:


> A public poll displays the screen names for all voters and which choice they voted for.
> 
> EDIT: I suppose I should check the _rest_ of the thread before answering questions.




Nah, just goes to show how helpful we are here


----------



## Umbran

Korgoth said:


> The nerdrage is strong in this one.






And the rudeness is strong with you.  Cut it out.  

Everyone - play nice, please.


----------



## Lars Porsenna

Voted "tried 4e, switched back to an older game." Really, we're playing SWSE right now (if 4e was like THIS instead...), and will probably try out Pathfinder when it comes out...

Damon.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Add me to "Changeover Completely". I be fine with playing 3.5 with the right DM. But when it comes to my preferred game for playing and the only one I will DM (of D&D editions) is 4e.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Tried 4E. Still playing Pathfinder, C&C, and True20. Wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: Stats & polls.

If you check the other, previous thread, a statistics teacher laid down the law as to why (and in which ways) Edena's poll was valid and the ways in which it wasn't.

I'm just saying.


----------



## Drowbane

Tetsubo said:


> 3.5 is the last edition of D&D.




QFT

At least until 5th... maybe.


----------



## Hussar

To be honest, I had thought the numbers would be different this time around.  I argued that there were a number of posters, back in the original poll, that like me were in the middle of a 3e (or whatever) campaign and would likely switch over when that ended and the whole "splitting the fanbase" thing wasn't as large as it appeared.

Well, it appears that I was wrong.  The split is very much there.  A real shame I suppose.  Although it does speak a lot to the strength of the 3e ruleset I suppose.  

In any case, I'm more than big enough (hey, stop with the fat jokes, I'm sensitive) to admit when I'm mistaken.


----------



## Lars Porsenna

Drowbane said:


> QFT
> 
> At least until 5th... maybe.




And then you'll have the 4e-to-5e flamewar, polls about who is switching over, posts commenting about how the poll is meaningless, and how their vote isn't a choice. Then someone will mention Adolf Hitler and...

Damon.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

No change; tried it, went back to a previous edition.

I don't really get the calls of ballot stuffing, as most of the _comments_ on this thread have been the same as mine.  Going by those comments, the poll has been somehow scewed in 4e's favor, if anything ;p


----------



## Vorput

Tried 4e for a few sessions, didn't like it- went back to 3.5.

Reading all the pro and con arguments in this thread- I have reached one firm conclusion:  I like polls (not necessarily for their accuracy, clarity, or use- but I like clicking the vote button).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> To be honest, I had thought the numbers would be different this time around.  I argued that there were a number of posters, back in the original poll, that like me were in the middle of a 3e (or whatever) campaign and would likely switch over when that ended and the whole "splitting the fanbase" thing wasn't as large as it appeared.
> 
> Well, it appears that I was wrong.  The split is very much there.  A real shame I suppose.  Although it does speak a lot to the strength of the 3e ruleset I suppose.
> 
> In any case, I'm more than big enough (hey, stop with the fat jokes, I'm sensitive) to admit when I'm mistaken.




Oddly enough, even though I'm in the "no 4Ed for me, thank you very much" camp, I agree with you about the way this poll is shaping up.  This really doesn't look like what happened in the 2Ed=>3Ed changeover.

I hoped 3.5 would continue to be a strong market force, but I _expected_- as WotC probably did- to see a slow changeover to 4Ed, with 3.5 lovers like me accounting for 25-33% of the "D&D nation."

This 55+% "anti-4Ed" result to me does seem to speak volumes about the strength of the 3.X system...as well as the effect that 3PP had upon the gaming market.

Still, only time will tell if the numbers for installed customer base will translate into lagging sales for the new product, since it is _really_ designed to bring new blood into the hobby and/or brand.  (And maybe "drain the swamp" of 3PPs, as some have alleged.)


----------



## Wormwood

Complete changeover in both of my groups. 

I've either given away or sold all of my previous edition books. Boxes and boxes---gone! My wife is very happy.


----------



## Jack99

Drowbane said:


> QFT
> 
> At least until 5th... maybe.



Yeah, that's gonna keep the E-wars out of this thread. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> No change; tried it, went back to a previous edition.



 Which one, out of curiosity?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oddly enough, even though I'm in the "no 4Ed for me, thank you very much" camp, I agree with you about the way this poll is shaping up.  This really doesn't look like what happened in the 2Ed=>3Ed changeover.



 And you are surprised by this?



> I hoped 3.5 would continue to be a strong market force, but I _expected_- as WotC probably did- to see a slow changeover to 4Ed, with 3.5 lovers like me accounting for 25-33% of the "D&D nation."



Where did you get those numbers? Especially on what WotC thinks and expects. Could you link the article in question?



> This 55+% "anti-4Ed" result to me does seem to speak volumes about the strength of the 3.X system...as well as the effect that 3PP had upon the gaming market.



Or a thousand other things...



> Still, only time will tell if the numbers for installed customer base will translate into lagging sales for the new product, since it is _really_ designed to bring new blood into the hobby and/or brand.  (And maybe "drain the swamp" of 3PPs, as some have alleged.)



What is interesting is despite the fact that 26% say they never tried it, 4e still outsells the previous edition(s) if we go by any of the indicators we have available, instead of relying on random polls. So either polls like this one are not representative, or there is something else happening. Maybe it's the new blood or something.

----------
Anyway, just to finish off this whole poll debate. Back when I played WoW, some guys weren't happy about the boards provided by Blizzard, so they made their own board, for the server. It quickly became popular amongst the raidguilds and those who wanted to be in the raidguilds. Had Blizzard come to our boards and conducted any polls, they would have found out some interesting things about our server. People play on average 35+ hours per week. They raid 3+ days a week, and pvp around 10 hours a week. The average number of level 60 characters (back in the day) was 2.1.

Now, do you really think we were a good representation of people who play WoW? Or even of our server? In case some of you know nothing of WoW, let me give you a hint. Those numbers are nowhere near average nor normal for the average WoW'er, as raiders and hardcore pvp'er represent less than 2-3% of the general WoW population.

It's precisely the same with ENworld.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Oddly enough, even though I'm in the "no 4Ed for me, thank you very much" camp, I agree with you about the way this poll is shaping up. This really doesn't look like what happened in the 2Ed=>3Ed changeover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are surprised by this?
Click to expand...



Honestly, yes.

In that changeover, by the time 3Ed had been out this long, 2Ed was pretty much a dead product.

I know- in many ways 2Ed was a dead product before 3Ed's release.  Even so, there were some holdouts, but they were far and few between.

As I've said elsewhere, I felt 3Ed was a strong product and the changeover to 4Ed was poorly handled, premature, and included too many design changes.

But even with all of that, I didn't expect 55+% to remain as holdouts.


> Where did you get those numbers? Especially on what WotC thinks and expects. Could you link the article in question?




My apologies- that sentence didn't say what I meant, which was 


> I hoped 3.5 would continue to be a strong market force, but I expected- as WotC probably did- to see a slow changeover to 4Ed.  My expectation is that 3.5 lovers like me would account for 25-33% of the "D&D nation."



_

<revisions mine>_


> This 55+% "anti-4Ed" result to me does seem to speak volumes about the strength of the 3.X system...as well as the effect that 3PP had upon the gaming market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or a thousand other things...
Click to expand...



Not really.  Its simple market analysis.

There are few people who would deny themselves access to a good or superior product simply out of spite.  Thus, there must be reasons for the decisions to not change to 4Ed- and most (not all) of those reasons will be rational.

Occam's razor applied, the majority of those people opting not to changeover do not perceive 4Ed to be a good or superior product to 3.X or its 3PP analogs.


> What is interesting is despite the fact that 26% say they never tried it, 4e still outsells the previous edition(s) if we go by any of the indicators we have available, instead of relying on random polls. So either polls like this one are not representative, or there is something else happening. Maybe it's the new blood or something.




New blood is the most likely reason for those sales, at least at this stage of the 4Ed roll-out.


----------



## FallenTabris

DaveMage said:


> If all you have run is Keep on the Shadowfell, then you haven't played the game for a real shakedown period yet (IMO).  (It's likely still new and shiny to you.)  Some people, after playing it a while, have found 4E to be lacking for various reasons.  On the other hand, there are those who have fallen in love with it, so the reason you don't understand might be simply a lack of experience with the game.




Keep on the Shadowfell is only what we last were doing.  Before I even started using the module I ran them through a dwarven tomb of my own creation, a raid by goblins on a poor town, and some skill challenges involving an investigation into a cult of a white dragon.  



> Many of the frustrations/complaints I have seen from people that have played it are:
> 
> 1) Sameness of classes
> 2) Combats are repetitive (same actions by the same PCs each time)
> 3) Combat grinds (combat outcome is known long before the end of it)
> 4) Wizards lack the appeal of the wizards of past editions
> 5) Not all that was core in 3.x is core in 4E  ("Core" being defined as the PH, DMG, and MM)
> 
> Of course, there are those which have played and have no problems with any of the above, but for those who are not playing anymore, these are some of the reasons often mentioned.




1 - I've seen that on message boards but not heard it in person.
2 - I think that depends on the individual.  One guy we had to remind he had other things to do besides just swing his axe.
3 - That I could agree with concidering how hit points are so high with some monsters/npcs. Taking into account the limited use powers, I could see an encounter turning into an At Will slap fest.  But I've seen teh same with World of Darkness, HERO, and other rpgs.
4 - Oh yeah they certainly work differently.  I see a feature where others see a bug. Fair enough.
5 - Druids and bards were my favorite classes in previous editions.  The wait for them to be incorporated with a PH2 bothers me.  Not enough to walk away from 4e, but if someone else gives this edition a pass I'd be sympathetic.


----------



## WereSteve

Looked over the 4E core rulebooks when they came out and decided it wasn't for me.  Sometime in January my current group will be stepping into The Wayback Machine and returning to 2.5E Core Rules with the possible side trek into OSRIC territory as time goes by.  Nothing quite like an old school Wilderlands hack and slash fest.


----------



## Jack99

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, yes.
> 
> In that changeover, by the time 3Ed had been out this long, 2Ed was pretty much a dead product.
> 
> I know- in many ways 2Ed was a dead product before 3Ed's release.  Even so, there were some holdouts, but they were far and few between.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, I felt 3Ed was a strong product and the changeover to 4Ed was poorly handled, premature, and included too many design changes.
> 
> But even with all of that, I didn't expect 55+% to remain as holdouts.



 I will give you that. If we assume the 55% who voted to be a correct indication of the ENworld situation, it does seem like a lot. I expected maybe half of that, but not that much. However, I still do not think those numbers are anywhere near reality if we look at all players.




> Not really.  Its simple market analysis.
> 
> There are few people who would deny themselves access to a good or superior product simply out of spite.  Thus, there must be reasons for the decisions to not change to 4Ed- and most (not all) of those reasons will be rational.
> 
> Occam's razor applied, the majority of those people opting not to changeover do not perceive 4Ed to be a good or superior product to 3.X or its 3PP analogs.



I agree to a certain degree, although evidence presented on these boards seem to indicate that quite a few of those who chose not to move to 4e has done so because they feel slighted by WotC. The GSL and an apparent hostile marketing campaign being sited as examples quite often. I do however think there is one thing that's worth mentioning, which has contributed to people not switching as well. The sheer amount of material they have collected during the OGL-era. Quite a few have mentioned that as a reason to switch: "I have 3.x material enough to last me a lifetime, I like 3.x, why should I switch". For those that think that 4e is clearly superior (like myself) it didn't matter how much they had, it was an easy choice to switch. For those that feel that 4e is good, but not necessarily better than 3.x, I can understand why they wouldn't want to switch. Especially coupled with the fact that the OGL ensures that it's at least possible to keep publishing material for that edition. 



> New blood is the most likely reason for those sales, at least at this stage of the 4Ed roll-out.



Wouldn't that be awesome? That would seem to indicate a lot of new people starting to play D&D.


----------



## pogre

I voted complete changeover, but I have a feeling this will probably be our last 4e campaign. 

I started a 4e homebrew campaign and promptly TPK'd the PCs in session 2. I decided "it's me, not you" and started again - this time we are going to follow the WOTC adventure path. 

We have had three fairly long sessions and there is still a fair amount of dissatisfaction for some of my players. They all like gaming together - so they will slog on willingly during this test drive.

If we give up on 4e after the campaign we won't return to D&D. Probably play WFRP 2e until 5th edition rolls out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jack99 said:


> Wouldn't that be awesome? That would seem to indicate a lot of new people starting to play D&D.




It would indeed be awesome in that sense.  I honestly don't care much who plays what, as long as our hobby continues to grow...as long as they don't want ME to DM 4th.

You never know, someone who is _at this moment _buying 4Ed D&D or HERO 5th might create the next truly revolutionary game...


----------



## Samurai

I voted "never played 4e, still playing older edition."

That said, I have bought several 4e books (the core books, the 2 Forgotten Realms books, Martial Power, and Manual of the Planes).  While there are many flaws in 4e, I would like to play it someday, and reading the books is interesting... I'm not just a player, I'm an rpg collector, so having at least the main 4e rulebooks is pretty much a requirement, even if I don't play it (I have dozens of other games I've never had a chance to play either.)

Our group has decided to stick with 3.5 for now.  They already have the rule books so no additional purchase needed.  They already know the rules.  We are playing in Scarred Lands, which is a 3.x setting, and all the setting materials would require conversion.  Plus, at least half the group is not happy with what they've read or heard about 4e, and so have no interest in switching anyway.  So, our group remains 3.5, probably will remain so for the foreseeable future, but I'm still buying some 4e books anyway.  

I wonder if others like me help account for the sale of 4e books despite few people actually switching over to it in their gaming groups?


----------



## Samuel Leming

Charwoman Gene said:


> Anectdotal evidence shows that polls that mark who voted, preventing ballot stuffing by logging out favor 4E, and polls that don't prevent it disfavor 4e.  Note the search cloud spamming that goes on too.



Ok.

I've put up a poll asking what people play most. I've marked it public voting, so let's see.

Sam


----------



## Jack99

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It would indeed be awesome in that sense.  I honestly don't care much who plays what, as long as our hobby continues to grow...as long as they don't want ME to DM 4th.
> 
> You never know, someone who is _at this moment _buying 4Ed D&D or HERO 5th might create the next truly revolutionary game...




I agree mate. Having to play a game or edition you do not want to play sucks bigtime, I imagine. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.


----------



## Imaro

Jack99 said:


> What is interesting is despite the fact that 26% say they never tried it, 4e still outsells the previous edition(s) if we go by any of the indicators we have available, instead of relying on random polls. So either polls like this one are not representative, or there is something else happening. Maybe it's the new blood or something.




Heh...I'll fess up to part of this, I bought a core set and an extra PHB, sight unseen for 4e... even though now I am playing 3.5 more than 4e and games other then D&D more than 3.5.  I think quite a few of us took the gamble (especially with the cheap initial price of places like Amazon) when 4e first came out and it increased initial sales drastically.  The funny thing is that spending the money on the books makes me want to like 4e... but I just don't find myself warming to it.


----------



## DaveMage

The biggest surprise in this poll to me is the number of people who have selected "No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play".

People like me, who haven't even tried it (for whatever reason) are one thing, but how dissappointing for 4E must it be that the highest number of votes in this poll is in this category?

I mean, once I played 3.0, I was hooked - no desire whatsoever to play 2E (or any other version) again.  (Though I will admit that the recent release of 4E has made me a bit nostalgic for the older editions.)  But to have failed to hook in such a large number of D&D hard core fans (as EN World arguably represents) is stunning to me.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

pogre said:
			
		

> If we give up on 4e after the campaign we won't return to D&D. Probably play WFRP 2e until 5th edition rolls out.




And this makes me sad.

The poll results are inconsequential. I suspect WotC would be pleased if they could turn 50% or more of the hardcore 3e audience into 4e fans (and by 'hardcore' I mean those folks that visit here regularly and own a library's worth of 3e material). But...

But anecdotes like pogre's are upsetting because he's easily got some cred when it comes to this. We see the same names saying the same stuff in this poll; that's to be expected - Danny, Cirno, Drow "3.5 is the last edition of D&D" bane, etc etc etc. And, of course, there's Jack, me, and a couple other folks. Not throwing stones here from a glass house.

So back to the reason I'm sad: pogre doesn't have the anti- or pro-4e baggage. He's a long-standing member of EN World (check the miniatures forum!) and, I suspect, he and his group have given 4e a college try. And may have found out it isn't for them.

Fine. That happens. 

But the killer here - the KILLER - is that they are done with D&D now. That is what worries me, my brethren: how many people that try 4e in the hopes of having something better than 3e are disappointed and *then* drop D&D all together?

I've made no secrets about it in my groups - there are some players that aren't (yet?) big fans of 4e.  But there's not one - _not one_ - guy in either of my two groups that would even _consider_ going back to 3e or one of its sundry derivatives.  So if 4e is not "it" then - just like pogre's group - D&D is not "it".

Troubling, mates. Troubling.

WP


----------



## DaveMage

Wisdom Penalty said:


> But there's not one - _not one_ - guy in either of my two groups that would even _consider_ going back to 3e or one of its sundry derivatives.





What were your issues, specifically, with 3E?


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

DaveMage said:
			
		

> What were your issues, specifically, with 3E?




For me? DMing became difficult at harder levels. I'll allow that is just as possible (if not probable) that it was _my_ problem and not the game's. I also began to dislike the arms race and the preponderance of magic, magic, magic.

For my players? The excessive splat books which - again - could be a problem attributed to me (the DM) as opposed to the game. Otherwise, I think it's fair to state the players really enjoyed 3e (as did I, when I was a player).

You won't hear me (I hope) bad-mouthing 3e. I think it's rude, to be blunt, to heap negativity on another guy's choice of system. 3e brought me back into D&D, as it did with a couple of my friends. I got nearly a decade of awesome gaming out of it. I owe Monte & Co. quite a bit.

To your point (and you of all people know I ramble before I finally get to the point): I don't think we could ever go back to 3e because 4e exposed some of the "flaws" of that game that we, perhaps, didn't even realize were flaws until we played 4e. I know that doesn't make much sense on the surface, but it's true nonetheless.

WP


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Imaro said:


> I bought a core set and an extra PHB, sight unseen for 4e._<snip>_The funny thing is that spending the money on the books makes me want to like 4e... but I just don't find myself warming to it.




But for the extra PHB, that was me.


> We see the same names saying the same stuff in this poll; that's to be expected - Danny, Cirno, Drow "3.5 is the last edition of D&D" bane,




Hold up, time out.

As I just pointed out, I bought into 4Ed _sight unseen._  I expected to like 4Ed and made that investment.

4Ed failed to grab me- that's not anti-4E baggage, that's installed consumer base who dislikes the company's product.

I'm patiently awaiting 5Ed- which I may or may not preorder- but if its more of the same I'll wait until 6Ed.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Someday, WotC (or whomever the IP holder is at that time) may produce a version of the game I'll embrace again, but I hope its before I wind up in some old-folks home.  (I'm 41, so tick, tick, tick, tick...)


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...(bunch of stuff)...I'm 41, so tick, tick, tick, tick...




I never said you had anti-4e baggage, Mr. Al. I just mentioned that there are some people who have opinions that are well known and have been well voiced, repeatedly, on any threads that might allow said opinions to be voiced.

And yes, I am in that boat as well.

Lastly, you are older than me, so nyah!*

Cheers,
The Young WhiPpersnapper


* By a very, very slim margin.

Edit: I probably shouldn't have lumped your name with Cirno and Drowbane. My apologies.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

No apologies necessary...we're on teh Interweb!

Besides, I apparently misunderstood your post just a bit.

No harm, no foul.


----------



## Scribble

Haha I'm only 31!


----------



## Greg K

Imaro said:


> I think quite a few of us took the gamble (especially with the cheap initial price of places like Amazon) when 4e first came out and it increased initial sales drastically.




I think the gamble did inflate sales and the percentage of  "No change: Tried 4e and went back" is somewhat reflective. 

There were a lot of people on ENWorld  (and other forums) claiming to buy the game unseen due to the Amazon prices.  Some did it out of genuine curiosity. Some did it out of fear that the majority of people would switch to 4e which would become the only readily available choice for DND.  Others liked what they saw from the info being released and claimed to buy copies for every member of their group to encourage them to switch despite having not seen the full game.


----------



## Imaro

Greg K said:


> I think the gamble did inflate sales and the percentage of "No change: Tried 4e and went back" is somewhat reflective.
> 
> There were a lot of people on ENWorld (and other forums) claiming to buy the game unseen due to the Amazon prices. Some did it out of genuine curiosity. Some did it out of fear that the majority of people would switch to 4e would become the only available choice for DND. Others liked what they saw from the info being released and claimed to buy copies for every member of their group to encourage them to switch despite having not seen the full game.




Something else I think that perpetuated the inflation of sales to those who ended up dissatisfied was the prevalent attitude on this board by many 4e fans that one couldn't discuss or voice anything bad about the game unless they had actually played it...not a one-off at a convention or KotS but the full game with all 3 corebooks. IMHO it got kind of ridiculous but also created the feeling that there was a much different experience in using the full rules for 4e as opposed to the quick start or the convention games...don't know how true that was but it probably helped sell to those who probably knew better than to invest in 4e but were convinced otherwise.


----------



## S'mon

I bought 4e unseen due to it being cheap on amazon.co.uk - I have never played it, and am currently running 3.5e and Labyrinth Lord,  playing LL.  However my club the London D&D Meetup Group, which is probably more representative of the hobby than ENW, is playing about 55-60% 4e to 40-45% 3.5e.  New 3.5e campaigns are still frequently launched, but 4e ones are more common.

Edit: Re 3.5e, I think a lot of people share my opinion that the game doesn't work at high level.  This caused many people to drop the system.  However once this is recognised, it plays perfectly well with a ca 1-10 level spread, more like 1e et al.


----------



## Imaro

S'mon said:


> I bought 4e unseen due to it being cheap on amazon.co.uk - I have never played it, and am currently running 3.5e and Labyrinth Lord, playing LL. However my club the London D&D Meetup Group, which is probably more representative of the hobby than ENW, is playing about 55-60% 4e to 40-45% 3.5e. New 3.5e campaigns are still frequently launched, but 4e ones are more common.





Still anecdotal...the Chicago D&D meetup group is 100% 3.5 no changeover whatsoever in their games yet.


----------



## S'mon

Imaro said:


> Still anecdotal...the Chicago D&D meetup group is 100% 3.5 no changeover whatsoever in their games yet.




Yeah, I think while it's impossible to be precise without a full survey, all the evidence points to less of a general changeover than WotC would have wished for.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

S'mon said:
			
		

> Re 3.5e, I think a lot of people share my opinion that the game doesn't work at high level.  This caused many people to drop the system.  However once this is recognised, it plays perfectly well with a ca 1-10 level spread, more like 1e et al.




Warning: Here comes a thread hijack. 

Have you tried this S'mon? That is - have you tried a 1-10 spread? For a time during the transition I considered doing this. As a DM, I'm highly in favor of it. But some of my players voiced significant resistance. The problem, in our group, came down to a "best for the DM" and "best for the Players" and those two views were oft-times conflicting on this issue. And since we're all a bunch of appeasers, I tried to meet them halfway and they tried to meet me halfway and everyone was only halfway happy. :0

I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think there's a "perfect" system out there somewhere that combines the best of 3e with the best of 4e, but I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to figure it out.

WP


----------



## Filcher

Total change over for our groups, but we rob 3.5 for material.


----------



## Filcher

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Someday, WotC (or whomever the IP holder is at that time) may produce a version of the game I'll embrace again, but I hope its before I wind up in some old-folks home.  (I'm 41, so tick, tick, tick, tick...)




40 years from now, I'm hoping for an old-folks home dedicated to gaming. Think of all the free time we'll have ...


----------



## Dragon Snack

I voted "No Change: all earlier edition play", but I forgot - I am not playing D&D currently...

I just put my 3.x game on hiatus (due to my job and living situation) and apparently a few members of the group have splintered off into their own 3.5 game.  So 4.0 has finally done what I feared it would - destroy my group.  Well, technically the group is still together, but in losing me (they don't want to drive 30 minutes to where I will be working on game night) they also turned their back on the very pro-4.0 player...

So now I'm with a different group (which I also previously DMed a 3.x game for) that is starting up a Sundered Skies (Savage Worlds) campaign.  Since this group has a couple members who dislike d20 (not just 3.x), I doubt we will be moving back to D&D any time soon.

I'll have plenty of opportunity to start up another game with a whole new group, but quite honestly, if I'm doing the recruiting, it's probably not going to be D&D.  In fact, it may not even be an RPG...


----------



## Scribble

Filcher said:


> 40 years from now, I'm hoping for an old-folks home dedicated to gaming. Think of all the free time we'll have ...




Yeah but think of how long a battle will take when we're all constantly falling asleep, forgetting what's happening, and can't hear half the stuff going on.

Oh wait... that sounds like a Thursday night campaign I ran for 8 guys once half of whom were potheads.


----------



## Korgoth

Charwoman Gene said:


> Nuh-uh.
> 
> Why are you defending it so vigorously?  Are you invested in the result yourself?




I'm not defending it vigorously. I'm just pointing out that you find the results of the poll upsetting and I think that is why you're saying it's invalid. It's a poll that suggests (not proves) that 4E is something less than the all-conquering god-king of gaming, and so the "4E Avengers" are here to beat up on it and start slapfights.

And if anything, "grognards" are very under-represented at EN World. So the cross-section of D&D players it represents should, if anything, skew toward more recent designs. There have been a number of polls here that show that OD&D (my favorite system) is not anywhere near as popular as other versions of D&D. But you don't see me throwing a fit and claiming that polls are bunk.

If you're enjoying 4E, by all means continue to play and enjoy it. A poll isn't going to take that away from you. *shrug* Maybe I just got used to not being with the majority (in any number of things) a long time ago. Once you get used to it it's not that big of a deal.

Even if WOTC decided to scrap 4E tomorrow (not likely) you could still play it for the rest of your life and if you feel there are any gaps in the crunch you could just fill them in yourself. So it's really nothing to get worked up about.


----------



## DaveMage

Wisdom Penalty said:


> For me? DMing became difficult at harder levels. I'll allow that is just as possible (if not probable) that it was _my_ problem and not the game's. I also began to dislike the arms race and the preponderance of magic, magic, magic.
> 
> For my players? The excessive splat books which - again - could be a problem attributed to me (the DM) as opposed to the game. Otherwise, I think it's fair to state the players really enjoyed 3e (as did I, when I was a player).
> 
> You won't hear me (I hope) bad-mouthing 3e. I think it's rude, to be blunt, to heap negativity on another guy's choice of system. 3e brought me back into D&D, as it did with a couple of my friends. I got nearly a decade of awesome gaming out of it. I owe Monte & Co. quite a bit.
> 
> To your point (and you of all people know I ramble before I finally get to the point): I don't think we could ever go back to 3e because 4e exposed some of the "flaws" of that game that we, perhaps, didn't even realize were flaws until we played 4e. I know that doesn't make much sense on the surface, but it's true nonetheless.
> 
> WP




The reason I ask is that if 5E is to be the "holy grail of D&D", I think we need to look back on both why people love and dislike 3E and 4E.

To your point about splats, I think this is a seldom-talked about, but very important point.  If one looks back at 1E, there are really only 5 core books for players with rules - the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide.  That's it.  We had 12+ years of an edition with only FIVE player-focused rulebooks.  Compare that with 3.5, which had (not including compendia) *24 IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD!*  That's way, way too many core rules options for a DM to master.  Therefore, the game is bound to break as written  (especially in a homebrew) as there is no way for a DM or adventure writer to account for everything.  2E started to break when kits took off, and 4E shows no signs of curtailing the problem as there will be 5 Core Player Rule Books within 1 year (Player's Handbook, Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Arcane Power, and Player's Handbook 2).

I'm all for options, not restrictions, but the drive to sell player-oriented books (in both 3E and 4E) is, IMO, killing this game.  It's too much.  I wish D&D were an evergreen, one-shot type base product, that says "here are the rules for players in this one book (or maybe a small few spread out over time - such as 1/year - but not 24!)" and the rest is using those rules (adventures, campaign setting, player and DM aides).

The other problem I have with 3E and 4E is the time it takes to play the game.  I have mentioned this elsewhere, but I think 5E needs to be released as a game that is played without the grid & minis.  That type of play can be added back in a tactical sourcebook, but otherwise I think it has the effect of making the basic game too centered on combat simulation and not on adventure (which I define as seeing unique places and meeting various challenges).  By "too centered" I mean that a single combat takes up too long out of a session.  

Of course, the economic realities at WotC may prevent such a strategy, but I think that for the health of the game, it needs a format change.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

S'mon said:


> Edit: Re 3.5e, I think a lot of people share my opinion that the game doesn't work at high level.  This caused many people to drop the system.  However once this is recognised, it plays perfectly well with a ca 1-10 level spread, more like 1e et al.






Wisdom Penalty said:


> I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think there's a "perfect" system out there somewhere that combines the best of 3e with the best of 4e, but I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to figure it out.




It's really not a question of being smart enough to fix the problems. Certainly WoTC is smart enough to fix design problems. 

The issue at hand is _agreeing on the revised list of design criteria_. WoTC's 4e design criteria included a long list of things that not only weren't perceived problems for many folks, the changes they pushed through made some folks even more recalcitrant. Some of the things on the 4e redesign list were purely marketing/legal/IP considerations-- clean design had nothing to do with it.

Even taking a step back from that-- throw out all the marketing changes-- there's no clear consensus from 3e players on what mechanics needed fixing.

At any rate, I am sure _somebody _will take a stab at that perfect system.


----------



## Darkwolf71

DaveMage said:


> To your point about splats, I think this is a seldom-talked about, but very important point.  If one looks back at 1E, there are really only 5 core books for players with rules - the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide.  That's it.  We had 12+ years of an edition with only FIVE player-focused rulebooks.  Compare that with 3.5, which had (not including compendia) *24 IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD!*  That's way, way too many core rules options for a DM to master.  Therefore, the game is bound to break as written  (especially in a homebrew) as there is no way for a DM or adventure writer to account for everything.  2E started to break when kits took off, and 4E shows no signs of curtailing the problem as there will be 5 Core Player Rule Books within 1 year (Player's Handbook, Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Arcane Power, and Player's Handbook 2).




That's a very interesting observation. Unfortunately, the need to make a profit and pay employees nearly assures that we won't see any drastic course changes.


----------



## DaveMage

Darkwolf71 said:


> That's a very interesting observation. Unfortunately, the need to make a profit and pay employees nearly assures that we won't see any drastic course changes.




Actually, once the base game rules are written, you don't need any design employees working full time on D&D.  All you need is someone to coordinate the direction of the game and freelance authors.

Edit - although I agree you do need significant numbers of employees in the current rulebook-a-month model.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Wulf Ratbane said:


> At any rate, I am sure _somebody _will take a stab at that perfect system.




I thought OD&D was the perfect system  Or at least the one true D&D.


----------



## Darkwolf71

DaveMage said:


> Actually, once the base game rules are written, you don't need any design employees working full time on D&D.  All you need is someone to coordinate the direction of the game and freelance authors.




Well then scratch it all up to the need for corporate profit. Whatever the reason, I doubt we'll see a change in the multiple book design of D&D anytime soon. OTOH, I think with 4e they've pushed the envelope as far in that direction as they can, so it can't get worse, right?... Right?


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Regarding splats: They're an unfortunate necessity in today's D&D. It started with 2e kits, worsened with 3e's softcover splats, and continues now with 4e. The only difference I see (and this is by no means a positive one) is that 4e _requires_ splats; the core is simply incomplete. Before anyone jumps on me - please realize this is just my opinion.

The counter to this argument about splats is this: "Dude, if you don't want them in your game, don't use them."

I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games. Sometimes it's a whole book, sometimes it's only a feat, sometimes it's a couple spells.  And then, before you know it, your "core" is 32 books and 17 Dragon articles.

Something I dearly like about 4e is the strength (mathematically) of the system. If we use an analogy, building an RPG is like building a house of cards. The more cards you use (e.g., splats), the more unstable it becomes. 4e provides a fairly stable "table" upon which to build, but it does not wholly circumvent this problem of instability.

WP


----------



## Greg K

I don't mind splats per se.  I liked the 2e splatbooks in general.  However, many of the kits, imo, just suffered from the patchwork nature of 2e.  

With 3e, I generally didn't care for the splat material from WOTC.  In general, I don't like PrCs, but I do allow (and, in some cases, require) some of the class variants from UA and a few other sources.  Furthermore, I would have preferred a release format for classes and race splats similar to Green Ronin's Master Class series, Mongoose's Quintessential line, and 2e's Complete Handbooks.


----------



## Greg K

Wisdom Penalty said:


> I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games. Sometimes it's a whole book, sometimes it's only a feat, sometimes it's a couple spells.  And then, before you know it, your "core" is 32 books and 17 Dragon articles.




A few random spells and feats from various books is easily handled by collecting them into either a Word or pdf document.


----------



## Scribble

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The only difference I see (and this is by no means a positive one) is that 4e _requires_ splats; the core is simply incomplete. Before anyone jumps on me - please realize this is just my opinion.




I see where you're coming from with this, but I have another opinion.

Rather then built to require splats, I think the system was built with the idea that splats are inevitable and the system needs to be able to account for them.


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> I see where you're coming from with this, but I have another opinion.
> 
> Rather then built to require splats, I think the system was built with the idea that splats are inevitable and the system needs to be able to account for them.




Huh?  I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by this??


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The counter to this argument about splats is this: "Dude, if you don't want them in your game, don't use them."
> 
> I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games.






Greg K said:


> A few random spells and feats from various books is easily handled by collecting them into either a Word or pdf document.




Just say NO. 

Man up. Sheesh.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Man up. Sheesh.




No kidding. But I'm a sucker for players and their puppy dog eyes. It stems from my desire for everyone to "maximize" their fun...which usually ends up in making things worse than if I had Just Said No.

I'm starting to think I should spend my money on some self-help books instead of RPG ones. Heh.

There's one born every day -
WP


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Imaro said:
			
		

> Huh?  I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by this??




Not to put words in Scribble's mouth (and I don't necessarily agree with his opinion), but it's certain valid.  I think what he's saying is that 4e is built to allow modular expansion, as opposed to previous versions of D&D wherein expansions were added without a similarly logical structure.

So, in other words, there are (I'm assuming) general "buckets" of guidelines as to how powerful a certain level monster or power should be. If one stays within these stakes, the thought goes, the game's balance is not thrown off-whack, as as been done in the past.

There's two problems with this:

(1) If true, these stakes have seemingly curtailed the imagination of expansion powers. Powers push, pull, slide, etc. targets ad infinitum. We're lacking the really cool, unique powers that differentiate themselves from the existing carnations. 

(2) We, as the tinkering community of gamers that we are, should be privy to these boundaries (if they exist).

WP


----------



## FallenTabris

I don't think the need for splats is anything other than simple demographics.  Players outnumber DMs anywhere from 3 to 7 against 1.  Of course there is going to be more books oriented towards players.  It makes sense that there should be releases geared towards the majority of the fanbase.  And multiple optional rules additions for character creation won't destroy the game.  It keeps it fresh and evolving so there is more distance between releases of a new edition.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Wisdom Penalty said:


> No kidding. But I'm a sucker for players and their puppy dog eyes. It stems from my desire for everyone to "maximize" their fun...which usually ends up in making things worse than if I had Just Said No.




Well, yeah. 

Thank goodness 4e gives you permission to own your game again, huh? 

Who would have guessed that the most revolutionary design in 4e was a new set of balls for gelded DMs.



> I'm starting to think I should spend my money on some self-help books instead of RPG ones. Heh.




Pretty much.

No offense intended, WP. Consider this "tough love."


----------



## DaveMage

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The counter to this argument about splats is this: "Dude, if you don't want them in your game, don't use them."
> 
> I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games. Sometimes it's a whole book, sometimes it's only a feat, sometimes it's a couple spells.  And then, before you know it, your "core" is 32 books and 17 Dragon articles.




Not to mention the fact that the latest splats build off of other splats and if you don't have those splats then you are buying a product that you may not be able to fully use.


----------



## Greg K

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Just say NO.
> 
> Man up. Sheesh.




I already do that. I allow very little non-core WOTC material outside of some UA options.  I am even very picky about 3pp material - even Bad Axe material is not found in my current game (of course, when I give Grim Tales a try, that will be another story) ;P


----------



## DaveMage

FallenTabris said:


> It keeps it fresh and evolving so there is more distance between releases of a new edition.




More distance?  Um, we've had three editions in 8 years.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Huh?  I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by this??




I mean they know that there will be splats in the future. They know people want to buy them, and so they want to sell them, so they also need to build the system to account for them from the start.

Easiest example I can point to is what combination of characters do you balance the game to?

3e balanced the party to the original "core classes." fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric. The game assumed those were in the party. It worked, but then once you start replacing those classes with others, things get messier.

So 4e instead balances assumptions in the game to a broader idea of "roles."
This allows you to easily add as many new classes as you want without messing up the math assumptions.  

Another area this shows in classes is te fact that they use the power system. No longer do classes get their main kick from their class. The powers supply what they can do mostly, so even if later on down the road the powers for one class start creeping upward? They can release new powers more in line with the new ones for the old classes and insure they remain relevant.

Also with the power system, each time you play a character it can be a different experience... so the old classes don't have to become "boring." When people start getting bored with Warlocks? Just throw in some new schticks and jazz them up a bit.

That kind of stuff.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Greg K said:


> I already do that.




NP-- I was aiming at Wisdom Penalty.



> I allow very little non-core WOTC material outside of some UA options.  I am even very picky about 3pp material - no Bad Axe material in my current game (of course, when I give Grim Tales a try, that will be another story) ;P




Heh.

I should just package a PDF called, "DM's Permission Slip: Dude, It's _Your _Game."

Or a pair of big brass balls d20s.


----------



## Greg K

Wulf Ratbane said:


> NP-- I was aiming at Wisdom Penalty.
> 
> I should just package a PDF called, "DM's Permission Slip: Dude, It's _Your _Game."
> 
> Or a pair of big brass balls d20s.




Lol. That is just it. A lot of DM's are too afraid to place limits or don't realize that they have the option (not saying that is the case with Wisdom Penalty).  

One of my M&M players, who is running a 3.5 DND campaign for another group is a good example.  His prior DND campaign was his very first time running any game. To make the situation worse, he had only been rpging for a few months when he took over the DM duties.  His game got so out of hand from supplements and allowing whatever options that the players wanted,  he was at his wits end. 

It was not until he saw me placing limits that he came to another myself and another player to start discussing GMing philosophy (and asking for advice) that he realized that setting limits could be a good thing- for both his game and his sanity.


Since starting a new campaign and carefully picking the allowable options, he has found the game much more enjoyable to run as has all of his players save the resident munchkin (based upon description of behavior), who refuses to accept his authority (strangely, the player does not have this problem in my M&M game or the Rolemaster game run by another player).


----------



## Scribble




----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> NP-- I was aiming at Wisdom Penalty.




Like the late great John Candy, I'm an easy target.

Look...I did have nuts once. Before I got married and before we started playing 3e.  I'm not trying to blame 3e for my faults, but I definitely noticed a change between 1e and 3e insofar as my DMing was concerned.

In 1e, I made judgment calls. Sometimes I even had to make rules, because nothing existed to cover the situation.  My players accepted this process for three reasons: (1) it's what everyone did back then, (2) they thought I had a modicum of intelligence, and (3) they trusted I wasn't out to screw them.

But 3e came along and things started to change. Why?  I'd submit because there was a rule for nearly everything. Not at once, mind you, but over the evolution of the game and the expansion of splats. Want to kip up from prone as a free action? There's a DC somewhere in some book for that. Want to climb with a rope while bracing against two walls? There's a DC somewhere. Bad examples, I know, but I don't feel like revisiting that.

So suddenly I started walking forward on shaky steps. I couldn't make judgment calls because I was fearful that in some book, somewhere, there was a *RULE* that governed that action. 

So, yes, I lost my balls. But it was a slow, gradual castration that went unnoticed until 4e came forward and said: "Dude, stop being a p----. Your player wants to do something? Figure out a DC and roll with it."

So mock me, Mr. Ratbane - I'm not so much of a schlep that I don't recognize my own shortcomings. I bet, however, that my pathetic story is not an outlier. 

At some point, the Rules trumped the DM.  Some folks like that, some don't. I'm in the latter category.

Keepin' it real since June '08,
WP


----------



## Mallus

On the subject of splatbooks...

I have a pretty good system that I use in my 3.5e World of CITY campaign. I don't ban anything outright. See banning would require vetting, or at least some thought about what material to include or not, I am too lazy a DM for all that. I'd have to do too much reading of often ill-written (and ill-conceived) gaming material. 

So I allow everything, with the caveat that I can remove anything if I have a problem with it during play. So far, it's worked like a charm.


----------



## catsclaw227

Wisdom Penalty said:


> At some point, the Rules trumped the DM.  Some folks like that, some don't. I'm in the latter category.





			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Since starting a new campaign and carefully picking the allowable options, he has found the game much more enjoyable to run as has all of his players save the resident munchkin, who refuses to accept his authority (strangely, the player does not have this problem in my M&M game or the Rolemaster game run by another player).



Sounds like the "resident munchkin" Greg K was talking about seems to follow the axiom that Rules trump the DM.

I have seen it in some small form since my first 1e days (circa 1978), but as much as I like 3.x, I believe this got out of hand with the 3e ruleset.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Look...I did have nuts once. Before I got married and before we started playing 3e.  I'm not trying to blame 3e for my faults, but I definitely noticed a change between 1e and 3e insofar as my DMing was concerned.
> 
> In 1e, I made judgment calls.
> 
> But 3e came along and things started to change. Why?  I'd submit because there was a rule for nearly everything.
> 
> So mock me, Mr. Ratbane - I'm not so much of a schlep that I don't recognize my own shortcomings. I bet, however, that my pathetic story is not an outlier.




Yikes! Not at all. In fact this conversation is almost identical to one I had with Destan... Uncannily similar.

I'll tell you what I told him:

If you don't know what the DC is for climbing a rope while bracing against two walls, wing it. Why would you want to look that up? Is your game going to be better or worse for the delay you incur? 

The fact that the rule is out there doesn't mean that you can't wing it; nor that your game is going to break down if you do decide to wing it and get it "wrong."


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> The fact that the rule is out there doesn't mean that you can't wing it; nor that your game is going to break down if you do decide to wing it and get it "wrong."




Rules Lawyers have existed since before D&D.

In my case, I was similar to Wisdom, but not really reluctant to wing things. It's just that inevitably I knew anytime I winged something there was a 95% chance the resident rules lawyers would whine. Which just causes a headache.

But thats not the DC for ice! 

It's the DC for THIS ice! 

But complete figureskater says the DC for walking on ICE is DC X! 

Yeah but this ice seems much more slippery, roll the dice.

Thats the whole reason I decided to walk on the ice in the first place! 

ROLL THE DAMN DICE!

I like that variable DCs are built into the system from the start. It just seems to make the rules lawyers a little less yappy. 

Plus a handy dandy chart of how challenging something is based on the number you choose is useful for winging it.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you don't know what the DC is for climbing a rope while bracing against two walls, wing it. Why would you want to look that up?




Because if there's a rule out there, then I feel compelled to use it. I'm not sure why - I just _do_.  I also became aware as I looked across the table that there were a number of guys who knew the rules better than I did - and I spent an inordinate amount of time flipping through those dang splats.

WP


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> Rules Lawyers have existed since before D&D.
> 
> In my case, I was similar to Wisdom, but not really reluctant to wing things. It's just that inevitably I knew anytime I winged something there was a 95% chance the resident rules lawyers would whine. Which just causes a headache.




If you have more Rules Lawyers than you have "normal" players, I can't help you.

But if there is sufficient pressure from you and the other players at the table to "STFU!" and "RTFD!", I find that it tends to sort itself out.

Honestly, I don't see any difference between having a Rules Lawyer at the table and having someone who, for example, Doesn't Pay Attention or Eats With Mouth Open.

It's a social activity. The focus is the group's enjoyment. You'll figure something out.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Scribble said:
			
		

> Rules Lawyers have existed since before D&D.
> 
> In my case, I was similar to Wisdom, but not really reluctant to wing things. It's just that inevitably I knew anytime I winged something there was a 95% chance the resident rules lawyers would whine. Which just causes a headache.
> 
> But thats not the DC for ice!
> 
> It's the DC for THIS ice!
> 
> But complete figureskater says the DC for walking on ICE is DC X!
> 
> Yeah but this ice seems much more slippery, roll the dice.
> 
> Thats the whole reason I decided to walk on the ice in the first place!
> 
> ROLL THE DAMN DICE!
> 
> I like that variable DCs are built into the system from the start. It just seems to make the rules lawyers a little less yappy.
> 
> Plus a handy dandy chart of how challenging something is based on the number you choose is useful for winging it.




This sums it up much better than my response. 

WP


----------



## Drammattex

Wisdom Penalty's experience is analogous to my own. 
@ Wulf: Near the end of my 3.5 days I did exactly what you suggest. I conducted an experiment outside my normal campaign where I ran a module and tried to play by ALL the rules exactly as written. If we didn't know something we looked it up. It wasn't that much fun, since of course the rules aren't what makes D&D great. When I went back to my campaign, I gleefully winged everything I needed to. Yet problems still came up. The game stopped while a player who knew the correct rule brought it up, or sometimes I just felt dumb for making some of the calls I made. I began house ruling things, then I cobbled together the rules I preferred from Iron Heroes and Conan. 

I won't claim that 4e is the best thing ever to happen to D&D (even if I believe it's up there), but man... I've been conducting the same experiment these days with 4e as I did with 3.5, using all the rules as written, and not only do I never seem to have to look anything up, but nothing gets in the way anymore. I'm finding it a pleasant return to the olden days, only with tighter mechanics. *shrug* And as much as skill challenges have been maligned, it's awesome to have a structured way to award xp for role-play and problem solving. I like it anyway.


----------



## Drammattex

Wisdom Penalty said:


> This sums it up much better than my response.
> 
> WP




LOL. Nice.


----------



## Greg K

catsclaw227 said:


> Sounds like the "resident munchkin" Greg K was talking about seems to follow the axiom that Rules trump the DM.




Yes, but I am still trying to figure out why the player is only like that in that one DM's campaign.  

When he presented me with his first concept for a character  in my M&M game, I told him "No!"  He was actually relieved by this and told me that  the character was simply a test to see what he could get away with, because other DMs he experienced let anything go and their games are already broken.

Knowing that the other GM, who runs Rolemaster, shares a similar GMing style, he didn't even test him when it came time to create a Rolemaster character.

I also know that I won't have any problems with him regarding the limits that I set down for my upcoming DND game.  He is perfectly fine with any limits that I place.

I just can't figure out why he still gives his other DM  problems (admittedly less) with the new limitations for the new campaign.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Because if there's a rule out there, then I feel compelled to use it. I'm not sure why - I just _do_.




I am sure now you're a sock-puppet for Destan. 



> I also became aware as I looked across the table that there were a number of guys who knew the rules better than I did - and I spent an inordinate amount of time flipping through those dang splats.




That's actually quite nice. It's handy. Our resident rules lawyer (GlassJaw) now knows that he has about 10 seconds to find the rule. (Sufficient group pressure through STFU and RTFD applied.)

If he has the rule at hand, great. 

If not, there are bad guys that need killin' and lootin'. He knows that we're not going to derail our fun over a rule.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> If you have more Rules Lawyers than you have "normal" players, I can't help you.
> 
> But if there is sufficient pressure from you and the other players at the table to "STFU!" and "RTFD!", I find that it tends to sort itself out.
> 
> Honestly, I don't see any difference between having a Rules Lawyer at the table and having someone who, for example, Doesn't Pay Attention or Eats With Mouth Open.
> 
> It's a social activity. The focus is the group's enjoyment. You'll figure something out.




Well yeah, otherwise I would have quit gaming from the start! 

Generally I game with friends, and I tend to run a relaxed game. Doesn't prevent rules lawyers from whining about rules they've commited to memory somehow.

And like I said, I had no issue with winging it, and saying shut the hell up! And having others in the group chime in with shut the hell up as well. But it's still annoying. 

3e felt like it encouranged them to whine more. 4e feels (thus far) like it doesn't as much. Rah rah- I like that.


----------



## Greg K

Scribble said:


> But complete figureskater says the DC for walking on ICE is DC X!
> 
> Yeah but this ice seems much more slippery, roll the dice.
> 
> Thats the whole reason I decided to walk on the ice in the first place!
> 
> ROLL THE DAMN DICE!.




At which case, I tell the player, "I don't care about the Complete Figure skater as it is an optional book.  Furthermore, this ice is apparently slippier than normal. 
However,  your character is so focused on why is this ice more slippery than other ice that he misses an even slicker patch, falls and cracks his head.

Now, the ice around your character's head is slowly becoming red in color!"


----------



## Imaro

You know I wonder if all this "freedom" with the rules of 4e is because...well there hasn't been as much time for people to master the rules like they did with 3.5...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> 3e felt like it encouranged them to whine more. 4e feels (thus far) like it doesn't as much. Rah rah- I like that.




Ah, those mystical mind-altering powers that 4e has. Its mechanics turn rules lawyers into sheep and DMs back into manly men.



Imaro said:


> You know I wonder if all this "freedom" with the rules of 4e is because...well there hasn't been as much time for people to master the rules like they did with 3.5...




No! You don't say...


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That's actually quite nice. It's handy. Our resident rules lawyer (GlassJaw) now knows that he has about 10 seconds to find the rule. (Sufficient group pressure through STFU and RTFD applied.)
> 
> If he has the rule at hand, great.
> 
> If not, there are bad guys that need killin' and lootin'. He knows that we're not going to derail our fun over a rule.




Which brings up somethign else...

Generaly I play D&D because it's a fun thing to do with my friends. I like running the game because I'm the type of person who likes to see everyone have fun. (I like to throw parties, I like to buy gifts, I like to cook dinner for people, etc...)

One thing I've noticed over the years is even when the ules lawyer eventually shuts up and rolls the die... they still sulk. They get all quiet, and stare at the table a bit... They're not having fun. Which sucks.

I preffer to see less headaches as I wing a DC and don't have to say Shut up roll the dice!, and less times I have to make someone upnhappy because they knew a rule and I didn't.

Shrug. To each his own man.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> One thing I've noticed over the years is even when the ules lawyer eventually shuts up and rolls the die... they still sulk. They get all quiet, and stare at the table a bit... They're not having fun. Which sucks.




And some folks' sense of fun is contingent on being a glory hog, or an evil character, or in general causing intra-party conflict. 

What can you do?

It's a mystery-- but I am sure 5th edition will contain some mechanics to magically address this psychology, too.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Ah, those mystical mind-altering powers that 4e has. Its mechanics turn rules lawyers into sheep and DMs back into manly men.




Since it's built along the lines of DCs are variable, rules lawyers (in my experience thus far) seem to be ok with DCs not being exactly spelled out in some way. No mystical mind tricks involved. 

Since monsters are built just with the ability to do random things by the book, they seem to accept the fact that a monster is doing something, as opposed to their usual "X monster can't do that!" ingrained response.

Again nothing mystical.  



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> You know I wonder if all this "freedom" with the rules of 4e is because...well there hasn't been as much time for people to master the rules like they did with 3.5...




Always possible. I can only go by what I've seen so far in my games. I could be completely wrong. When 3e came out I was originally happy and thought all the rules spelled out clearly would lessen the rules lawyers... But then I found out it didn't, and seemed to encourage them.

I could be wrong about 4e, but so far I haven't noticed it.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> At which case, I tell the player, "I don't care about the Complete Figure skater as it is an optional book. Furthermore, this ice is apparently slippier than normal.
> However, your character is so focused on why is this ice more slippery than other ice that he misses an even slicker patch, falls and cracks his head.
> 
> Now, the ice around your character's head is slowly becoming red in color!"




Cool. Glad it works for you. I've had similar situations before too. I'd preffer to avoid that situation from the start, and just have everyone having fun as much as possible.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> And some folks' sense of fun is contingent on being a glory hog, or an evil character, or in general causing intra-party conflict.
> 
> What can you do?
> 
> It's a mystery-- but I am sure 5th edition will contain some mechanics to magically address this psychology, too.




If it does so in some way I find enjoyable, and find makes the game more playable/fun for everyone then I'l be all for it.

Seriously what is your issue here? What difference does it make to you whether or not I feel 4e makes a better game night with my group?


----------



## FallenTabris

DaveMage said:


> More distance?  Um, we've had three editions in 8 years.




I thought it was only two, 3.x and the new 4e.  I don't see 3.5 and 3.0 as significantly different.


----------



## mmu1

Scribble said:


> One thing I've noticed over the years is even when the ules lawyer eventually shuts up and rolls the die... they still sulk. They get all quiet, and stare at the table a bit... They're not having fun. Which sucks.




I don't know what your experiences were like, exactly, but I'm actually one of those people who gets upset when I know the rules and I base my decision-making on them, but the DM does not and wings it badly, in effect arbitrarily deciding that my character is going to fail at something I thought was a reasonable course of action based on my experience and skill at playing the game.

I also dislike it when a DM decides to wing it and gets it wrong when it's an extremely simple matter (like a DC) and they could just _ask_ and get an answer without slowing the game down to any appreciable extent. Players who know the rules can be a valuable resource.

Of course, you need to be able to accept that there _will_ often be times when the best thing the DM can do is make a ruling on the fly - few things benefit from a lengthy discussion in a committee.


----------



## DaveMage

FallenTabris said:


> I don't see 3.5 and 3.0 as significantly different.




It was different enough that WotC was able to release books for each (3.0 and 3.5) that had the same classes, same races, same spells, same equipment, same magic items and same monsters.

3.5 was most certainly a different edition from 3.0 from their perspective.


----------



## S'mon

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Warning: Here comes a thread hijack.
> 
> Have you tried this S'mon? That is - have you tried a 1-10 spread? For a time during the transition I considered doing this. As a DM, I'm highly in favor of it. But some of my players voiced significant resistance. The problem, in our group, came down to a "best for the DM" and "best for the Players" and those two views were oft-times conflicting on this issue. And since we're all a bunch of appeasers, I tried to meet them halfway and they tried to meet me halfway and everyone was only halfway happy. :0
> 
> I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think there's a "perfect" system out there somewhere that combines the best of 3e with the best of 4e, but I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to figure it out.
> 
> WP





Forked reply to new thread.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> Since it's built along the lines of DCs are variable, rules lawyers (in my experience thus far) seem to be ok with DCs not being exactly spelled out in some way. No mystical mind tricks involved.




There's no functional mechanical difference between 4e, where DCs are not exactly spelled out in some way, and a 3e game where the DM "wings it" with DCs that are not exactly spelled out in some way.

Except for the mystical part, wherein 4e gives you "permission" to wing it and now everybody is ok with that. Yay, 4e fixed it!



> Since monsters are built just with the ability to do random things by the book, they seem to accept the fact that a monster is doing something, as opposed to their usual "X monster can't do that!" ingrained response.
> 
> Again nothing mystical.




That's entirely mystical. It is dependent on the players' acceptance of the variation, not the system.



> Seriously what is your issue here? What difference does it make to you whether or not I feel 4e makes a better game night with my group?




I don't have an issue with you having fun. I have an issue with magical thinking. Your players' ability to lighten up and have fun with a new system has nothing to do with the system other than its newness.

Let's say that starting tomorrow, every game session I run, I am going to wear a red T-shirt that says, "My House, My Rules." Amazingly, my players lighten up, there are no more arguments, and everybody has fun.

Should I attribute the new and improved game to the players, to the system, or to the red T-shirt?

And if your answer is, "The red T-shirt!" how much are you willing to pay me for it?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

We're past 500 votes (539.)

  And we have:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  57%
  Partial Changeover:  19%

  If I may make a guess, as the pollster, I believe many people view Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, and others to be 'earlier' editions of D&D, and that's why the (almost) 60/30 split.

  The number of people taking option 6 (tried 4E, went back to earlier editions) is large, 3 out of every 10 poll respondents.
  If that were factored out, the Changeover versus No Changeover ratio would be an even 50/50 split.


----------



## Derren

edena_of_neith said:


> we're past 500 votes (539.)
> 
> and we have:
> 
> Changeover:  32%
> no changeover:  57%
> partial changeover:  19%




32+57+19 = 108% ?


----------



## Jasperak

Edena_of_Neith said:


> If I may make a guess, as the pollster, I believe many people view Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, and others to be 'earlier' editions of D&D, and that's why the (almost) 60/30 split.
> 
> The number of people taking option 6 (tried 4E, went back to earlier editions) is large, 3 out of every 10 poll respondents.
> If that were factored out, the Changeover versus No Changeover ratio would be an even 50/50 split.




Don't you mean if you factor out the people that did NOT give 4e a chance, there is a 50/50 split between the people that have played 4e. Or to put it more clearly - of the people that tried 4e and responded, half of them went to an earlier edition or different game altogether.

I am not sure what you mean by factoring out the people that tried 4e and decided to go elsewhere for their gaming needs.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Our group has come to a consensus that works for us on rules questions and winging it. Obviously if the DM makes an arbitrary ruling and nobody notices then no problem. If the DM makes a ruling that somebody disagrees with then it is brought to everyones attention, if any rules lawyer (or anyone else) can open a book and point to the official rule in about 30 seconds the DM has the option of accepting the official rule or declaring that his ruling will be a new house rule. If the official rule can't be found in 30 seconds then the DM ruling stands for the rest of the session. Anyone can decide to look up and point out the official rule after that session is over and the DM then has the option to accept it in future sessions (no-retconning) or to house rule it for future sessions. 

This keeps the game moving and rules lawyers have a chance both in game and after game to present their case. Probably 95% of the rules dispute are settled by the official rules and only 5% of arbitrary rulings get houseruled. Our players don't mope ingame because they know they will have a chance to fully study and present thier case before future sessions fix the rule in place. If out of game apealls go against the player they have a couple of days to get the moping over with before we play again.


----------



## Jasperak

Derren said:


> 32+57+19 = 108% ?




It should read:
Complete Changeover: 32%
No Changeover: 57%
Partial Changeover: 11%

Edena added the second option to both complete and partial changeover instead of just complete.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Don't you mean if you factor out the people that did NOT give 4e a chance,




You really have _no_ idea of why people didn't sit down to play a game of 4Ed.  The fact that they haven't doesn't mean they "did not give 4E a chance."

Personally, I've been playing since 1977.  At my peak, I owned over 100 different RPG systems.  I've played at least a few dozen more, including some playtests (some games went to market, some didn't).

I'm pretty sure I can judge whether a game is worth my time to try by a thorough read-through of the rules...which is what I did for 4Ed.

My opinion was that it was a mechanically balanced game with many good features, but with many, many more that I didn't like *at all.*  For me, there was no point in playing the game as a DM.  Given the fact that nobody else in my game group (10 guys, all with at least 10 years gaming experience, most with DMing experience) wanted to DM it after a read-through either, that was it.

It may not seem like it to you, but by my definition, I gave it a fair shake and found it wanting.

If you think I haven't, find a copy of F.A.T.A.L. and apply the same standard- if you_ actually_ give it a playtest after reading the rules, I'd be surprised.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you think I haven't, find a copy of F.A.T.A.L. and apply the same standard- if you_ actually_ give it a playtest after reading the rules, I'd be surprised.




I got as far as character creation, but I decided I'd be damned if I was going to play a character so lacking in "length" and "girth."

I play RPGs to _escape _reality.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> There's no functional mechanical difference between 4e, where DCs are not exactly spelled out in some way, and a 3e game where the DM "wings it" with DCs that are not exactly spelled out in some way.
> 
> Except for the mystical part, wherein 4e gives you "permission" to wing it and now everybody is ok with that. Yay, 4e fixed it!
> 
> That's entirely mystical. It is dependent on the players' acceptance of the variation, not the system.




It has nothing to do with permission. I don't get where you're getting this idea from?

The functional difference is that the rules written in the book show the idea of DCs changing, and that sometimes achallange may be harder or easier then another time you've encountered something similar.

The rule the lawyer ends up falling back on is that DCs are not set numbers. They're variable based on whatever challange level the DM needs. 

So I'm happy because I can continue setting difficulties based on how hard I want soemthing to be, and the lawyer is happy because he no longer assumes something is a certain number.



> I don't have an issue with you having fun. I have an issue with magical thinking. Your players' ability to lighten up and have fun with a new system has nothing to do with the system other than its newness.




See above. You don't know my group. Stop thinking your omnicient.

If you have a different play experience then I have, cool. Good for you. Continue playing however you'd like. 




> Let's say that starting tomorrow, every game session I run, I am going to wear a red T-shirt that says, "My House, My Rules." Amazingly, my players lighten up, there are no more arguments, and everybody has fun.
> 
> Should I attribute the new and improved game to the players, to the system, or to the red T-shirt?
> 
> And if your answer is, "The red T-shirt!" how much are you willing to pay me for it?




Great so make up some kind of argument I'm not making, then attribute it to me, in order to prove some strange point you seem like you're hell bent on proving?

Well you win dude. Have fun with your shirt.


----------



## Greg K

I second what Dannyalcatraz wrote, because that is pretty much my experience as well (although,  I started  with DND in 1979 and, thankfully, only know of FATAL from mention on internet forums).


----------



## JeffB

Scribble said:


> I can only go by what I've seen so far in my games. I could be completely wrong. When 3e came out I was originally happy and thought all the rules spelled out clearly would lessen the rules lawyers... But then I found out it didn't, and seemed to encourage them




This.

Exactly my experience. No thanks.

I think it's human nature for many people to "game the system" whether it's D&D or professional sports, or computer games or whatever. The more complicated and complete the rules the more people try to exploit them/take them as far as they can. This is a huge issue I have with RPGs and players in general-and have since I was a kid. I've always avoided "rules lawyers" like the plague, and am quite clear that I don't put up with that BS at my table-find another group. When systems are less defined and open to some interpretation, things run smoother overall *AS LONG AS*a DM's  rulings are consistent and fair

IMO..YMMV..AFAIC...These people are actors, consult a lawyer before making any decisions, Call your Dr. if your erection lasts longer than 5 hours, etc etc blah blah blah


----------



## Jasperak

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You really have _no_ idea of why people didn't sit down to play a game of 4Ed.  The fact that they haven't doesn't mean they "did not give 4E a chance."
> 
> /snip
> 
> I'm pretty sure I can judge whether a game is worth my time to try by a thorough read-through of the rules...which is what I did for 4Ed.
> 
> *It may not seem like it to you, but by my definition, I gave it a fair shake and found it wanting.*




Relax Tex, my sentence that you quoted did not mean to offend but clarify my point in questioning if Edena meant one or the other. 

I consider an honest read of the rules to be "trying" because IMHO you can see how the game will play. I played in the intro adventure and was unimpressed. I also gave the actual rules a good read and looked at the different options for the classes (except the powers after level 4 or so.) I saw a lot of options in the core rules and changes that I did like, but just as many that I did not. Eventually I realized this game is too different for me and moved on to something different. Neither 3e nor 4e is for me.

After hearing others talk about it, I am looking into Warhammer Fantasy, If anyone has the PDF I can read 

BTW I have only been playing D&D since the mid 80's.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Wisdom Penalty said:


> There's two problems with this: (1) [...] We're lacking the really cool, unique powers that differentiate themselves from the existing carnations. (2) We, as the tinkering community of gamers that we are, should be privy to these boundaries (if they exist).



Another thing you missed -- but nearly everyone does -- is that "versatility" _is_ "power."  If you increase the options available to a PC, you increase that PC's power.

As a stripped down example, _fireball_.  A balanced ability.  No problem.  Now give the PC _acidburst_ (call it exactly like _fireball_, but with acid).  _Acidburst_ by itself is still a balanced ability.  But if PCs can choose between them, they'll choose the one to which monsters have no resistance.  That's increased power.

Power increases by way of options tend to be slower and more manageable than power increases by way of, e.g., damage dealt, but the power increase is still very real.  When people say things like, "It increases flexibility, but not power," they're getting it wrong.  Those things aren't opposites.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Drammattex said:


> Wisdom Penalty's experience is analogous to my own.



Mine, too.  But starting a couple of years ago, I began fixing it.  Now I very happily create monster abilities, even sometimes on the fly.  I wing DCs.  I tell my players, "Look, if you pump your ACs into the stratosphere, the monsters are going to magically get stratospheric attack bonuses."

This is all despite my meticulous nature.  Three years ago, if I didn't have a major villain stat-block fully completed, we couldn't play that encounter.  Now ... ehn.  (Don't get me wrong ... I still prefer a complete stat-block, but the lack comes nowhere near paralyzing me now.)

It's been very liberating, and it solves a _lot_ of DMing headaches under 3.5.  Even -- maybe especially -- at high levels.  The irony, of course, is that 3E _did_ train me to be so rules-dependent in the first place, no question.  A rule for everything was one of the things the designers strove for, and they did too good a job.

I just wish there were a full-page, 24-point font section on, "There are a bazillion fiddly little rules here, but if it will speed up your game, screw 'em.  Learn them when you learn them."  We all _know_ that, but as Wisdom Penalty testified, the knowledge erodes gradually.  In at least some of us.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Scribble said:
			
		

> The functional difference is that the rules written in the book show the idea of DCs changing, and that sometimes achallange may be harder or easier then another time you've encountered something similar.
> 
> The rule the lawyer ends up falling back on is that DCs are not set numbers. They're variable based on whatever challange level the DM needs.




There is no difference between 3e and 4e like this.

The rules written in the 3e book show that the DM always can set whatever they want  as a DC, and they give a host of "typical challenges" so that there is a baseline you can deviate from.

The rules laywer should end up stumbling across Rule 0 and learn that no rule is set in stone -- they're variable based on whatever challenge level the DM needs.

4e did not give you this. It was there all along.


----------



## Treebore

I've only been gaming for 24+ years, and have read and played a lot too. I have found that a read through is not always good enough to judge a game by. Which is why I played 4E weekly for about two months. It confirmed my suspicions, I don't like it.

I thought Aces and Eights would be overly rules heavy and drudgingly slow. I was wrong. I'm loving it.

I thought I would hate Shadowrun back in the day, and GURPS, and RIFTS, and many other games. Then I played them and had a great time.

Some I love, like L5R. Others I don't like, such as White Wolf's stuff. Don't know why, I loved their CCG's like Rage and Jyhad, but I didn't like the rules.

I'm currently looking over TWilight 2000's third edition, twilight 2013, and it reads like I will enjoy it, a lot. I hope I am right when I get to play it. 

Still, I won't know until I play it and see how the rules actually work. Just reading never reveals that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jasperak said:


> Relax Tex, my sentence that you quoted did not mean to offend but clarify my point in questioning if Edena meant one or the other.




Gotcha!

Ahhh, teh Interweb!  It giveth the freedom to converse with people all over the world...and it taketh away the subtle body language and inflections that often clarifies our words.

No harm, no foul!


----------



## Jasperak

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No harm, no foul!




It's all good. Happy New Year


----------



## Knightwind1972

Tried 4E, went back to 3E.

From now on its 3E or the highway when it comes to DnD.


----------



## Darrin Drader

I'm honestly surprised every time I read that a DM has a hard time taking control of the game (and by taking control, I mean deciding what's allowed and what isn't, and not allowing the players to run roughshod over them). I've allowed my players to correct me when I get a rule wrong, but only if they know precisely how I'm wrong. I don't take the holier than thou approach, I just don't allow rules arguments to slow down the game.

To be completely honest, there are rules that have appeared in books I helped write that I haven't allowed in my games. Why? Because they just didn't fit the style of game I was running, or I had an objection about the way the rule, in its final edited form, worked.

Oh yeah. Happy New Year!


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm honestly surprised every time I read that a DM has a hard time taking control of the game (and by taking control, I mean deciding what's allowed and what isn't, and not allowing the players to run roughshod over them).



If this is in reference to Wisdom Penalty and myself (and others), you may want to reread, because this isn't what we said.  (If it's not inreference to us, of course, never mind.)

With particular reference to me, believe me, I've _never_ had a problem with players gaining control of my game.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Jeff Wilder said:


> If this is in reference to Wisdom Penalty and myself (and others), you may want to reread, because this isn't what we said.  (If it's not inreference to us, of course, never mind.)
> 
> With particular reference to me, believe me, I've _never_ had a problem with players gaining control of my game.




I'm seriously generalizing. It isn't referencing what either of you said specifically, it's just that a lot of DMs voiced throughout 3rd edition that they didn't feel like they were in control. I certainly agree than in many cases, there were probably more rules that were really needed, which were spread out over too many splats, but the DM shouldn't be afraid to take the RAW and make them his own. After all, the rules are just a framework upon which to hang a story; they are not the ends in themselves.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm seriously generalizing. It isn't referencing what either of you said specifically, it's just that a lot of DMs voiced throughout 3rd edition that they didn't feel like they were in control.



To be fair, at least two of the designers of 3E have expressed that they felt they went too far in putting rules in control of the game.  This is another case where a rules-set, though never dispositive of anything, has real influence over how games get run in practice.  Like Wisdom Penalty, I let the _rules_ take control of the game, not my _players_.  (And I'm seeing the same thing in both of my DMs, too.)


----------



## Campbell

I'm kind of in a strange situation. I'm a 4e convet playing in a 3.5 game. I love 4e to death, but the 3.5 game I'm in is moving towards a more story-oriented approach so I'm largely happy with it.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Scribble said:


> The functional difference is that the rules written in the book show the idea of DCs changing, and that sometimes achallange may be harder or easier then another time you've encountered something similar.




Huh. I've never seen the word "difference" used as a synonym for "exactly the same" before. Because the 3rd Edition rulebooks, after all, included exactly the same type of verbiage regarding varying DCs. If you didn't read it, that's not 3rd Edition's fault.

And if we're dealing with anecdotal evidence, I can point to exactly the opposite: I experienced far more rules lawyering in our 4th Edition playtests. I suspect its because the dissociated mechanics encourage or force players to interact with the mechanics instead of the game world.


----------



## Jack99

DaveMage said:


> To your point about splats, I think this is a seldom-talked about, but very important point.  If one looks back at 1E, there are really only 5 core books for players with rules - the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide.  That's it.  We had 12+ years of an edition with only FIVE player-focused rulebooks.  Compare that with 3.5, which had (not including compendia) *24 IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD!*  That's way, way too many core rules options for a DM to master.  Therefore, the game is bound to break as written  (especially in a homebrew) as there is no way for a DM or adventure writer to account for everything.  2E started to break when kits took off, and 4E shows no signs of curtailing the problem as there will be 5 Core Player Rule Books within 1 year (Player's Handbook, Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Arcane Power, and Player's Handbook 2).
> 
> I'm all for options, not restrictions, but the drive to sell player-oriented books (in both 3E and 4E) is, IMO, killing this game.  It's too much.  I wish D&D were an evergreen, one-shot type base product, that says "here are the rules for players in this one book (or maybe a small few spread out over time - such as 1/year - but not 24!)" and the rest is using those rules (adventures, campaign setting, player and DM aides).



 This is probably the smartest thing I have read on these boards for a while.



Korgoth said:


> I'm not defending it vigorously. I'm just pointing out that you find the results of the poll upsetting and I think that is why you're saying it's invalid. It's a poll that suggests (not proves) that 4E is something less than the all-conquering god-king of gaming, and so the "4E Avengers" are here to beat up on it and start slapfights.



Just in case you do not know it, a lot of people feel 4E Avengers is a pretty insulting term. But perhaps it was meant as an insult?

Also, your logic is deeply flawed. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I doubt you will find many on these boards, 4e fan or not, that will not acknowledge that the D&D community is divided and that 4e has not succeeded in catching the fancy of anywhere near the majority of the hardcore 3.x fans. 

The things we do not agree on is how big is this hardcore 3.x fan base. Is ENworld a good representation of the D&D community? And last but not least, can polls like these really be extrapolated to some useful information, no matter what the poll shows. Or are we (the regulars of the boards, those who vote) simply too far from the average gamer.

Let's face it, we have 70k members and I presume quite a lot of hits per day, and yet, it's the same 500-1k people who vote and post most of the time. 

/shrug

I think that in the end, we should all just be happy to have a game we love (no matter the edition), assuming that we can get to play it, of course. 

Happy New Year


----------



## Derren

Jack99 said:


> Let's face it, we have 70k members and I presume quite a lot of hits per day, and yet, it's the same 500-1k people who vote and post most of the time.




1k samples for a 70k group is actually quite much and enough for a quite accurate statistic.

And I agree with Korgoth.
If this poll would be more positive for 4E, then a lot less people would argue that the poll not representative.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Jack99 said:


> Just in case you do not know it, a lot of people feel 4E Avengers is a pretty insulting term. But perhaps it was meant as an insult?




For the record, a lot of people find the 4E Avengers to be a pretty insulting group of posters. Although, I agreed that it is a term that has no place at ENWorld.


----------



## JeffB

This "4E Avenger" term cracks me up, because 7-8 years ago all the new 3E fans did the exact same damn thing here and elsewhere on the net- annoying the hell out of the 2E fans/holdouts, telling them the new game was a bazillion times better, and older editions suck, and the older editions drove us away from D&D, blah blah. 

Now they are the one's crying about the loss of "their game"-What goes around comes around I reckon.


----------



## Psion

Campbell said:


> I'm kind of in a strange situation. I'm a 4e convet playing in a 3.5 game. I love 4e to death, but the 3.5 game I'm in is moving towards a more story-oriented approach so I'm largely happy with it.




You aren't talking about my PbP are you?

Because there's a good chance it could get downright _combative_ over the run. 

But being who I am (see my Robin Laws style breakdown in sig), there's always going to be a story behind it.


----------



## Maggan

Beginning of the End said:


> I experienced far more rules lawyering in our 4th Edition playtests. I suspect its because the dissociated mechanics encourage or force players to interact with the mechanics instead of the game world.




When my group sit down to test a game, we focus very much on mechanics, instead of the game world. After our intitial testing of the system, if we decide to play the game further, we shift the focus more to interaction with the game world.

So maybe what you experienced might be at least in part a result of the circumstances under which you were playing, i.e. a playtest, and not a direct result of how the rules in D&D4e are constructed?

/M


----------



## Jack99

Derren said:


> 1k samples for a 70k group is actually quite much and enough for a quite accurate statistic.



 Only if the 1k who vote are representative of the boards as a whole. See my example from WoW. It ain't always true.



> And I agree with Korgoth.
> If this poll would be more positive for 4E, then a lot less people would argue that the poll not representative.




It's possible, I can't deny that. Or perhaps it would just be some other people arguing. 

Happy New Year!


----------



## BryonD

Echohawk said:


> I don't think it is too much of a leap to guess that folks here are probably also more invested (financially and emotionally) in 3ed than the average gamer.



Key word: "financially"

When 3E came out, people with stacks of 2E books went and bought stacks of 3E books.  The fraction of the fan base with stacks of 3E books that has started buying stacks of 4E books is decidedly smaller.  I believe WotC wanted to target a wider range of fans.  But if they have succeeded in trading one fan who bought a book a month for 4 fans who each buy less than a book a year, then they have made a bad deal.  But hey, at least those "fans" are not so financially invested that they won't switch straight to buying nothing for 5E.  

WotC has most certainly lowered the bar and made D&D more accessible to casual gamers.  But it has also made a game that is a lot less appealing to people who think of themselves as gamers as an overall group.  And please don't bother explaining to me how you are completely the opposite of this claim.  I'm certain there are quite a large number of you reading this.  Unless you intend to buy a few thousand of the next 4E supplement, it doesn't change the point.

I also struggle with the idea that it seems that "emotionally invested" gamers prefer 3E and yet the numbers for 4E are low (in part) because we are still waiting for all these less emotionally invested, certain to switch over to 4E, gamers to wrap up their 3E games six months later.  My campaigns generally run a year or two.  So it is certainly possible, but the idea that a meaningful number of would be 4E, non-emotionally invested gamers cranked up a new 3E campaign in the final six months of the the pre-release hype and now can't bear to leave that game and move on, is a bit hard to swallow.  I mean, the whole premise is a lack of emotional investment...

I still think that a low bar recruiting strategy is a very short sighted plan for table top gaming.  (and perhaps there is my flaw and maybe WotC doesn't care to have a long term plan for table top gaming.  I'm not claiming they don't, I'm just throwing out the possibility) 

I still believe that a sizable fraction of the non-gamers who have joined in to the easy, accessible new system will move on to the next new thing sooner rather than later.  And I also think that a sizable fraction of the gamers who do like 4E will find that the simplifications will lead to a much more rapid been-there, done-that than is typical.  And I know, not you.  I'm not talking about you.  I'm talking about community.


----------



## Eridanis

Folks - we've had a constructive discussion so far. Let's not drag this down with personal attacks.


----------



## Derren

BryonD said:


> WotC has most certainly lowered the bar and made D&D more accessible to casual gamers.  But it has also made a game that is a lot less appealing to people who think of themselves as gamers as an overall group.  And please don't bother explaining to me how you are completely the opposite of this claim.  I'm certain there are quite a large number of you reading this.  Unless you intend to buy a few thousand of the next 4E supplement, it doesn't change the point.




Its very similar to the video game industry, especially the Wii.
Nintendo made console gaming more accessible and many people who did never game before bought a Wii. But the gamers are dissatisfied because nearly all games for the Wii are simple sports and party games for the casual group.

The casuals  on the other hand loose intrest in the Wii rather fast. And while the Wii console has sold very well, the game sales are rather small, especially when compared to the number of consoles sold.

That is very similar to 4E in my opinion with Wii console = 4E Core books and Wii games = splats.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Derren said:


> That is very similar to 4E in my opinion with Wii console = 4E Core books and Wii games = splats.




Now I'm picturing Jack or Wisdom Penalty doing this when they opened 4e:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n41c6eXWZwM]YouTube - Wii Scream - Just the Scream[/ame]


----------



## Tetsubo

JeffB said:


> This "4E Avenger" term cracks me up, because 7-8 years ago all the new 3E fans did the exact same damn thing here and elsewhere on the net- annoying the hell out of the 2E fans/holdouts, telling them the new game was a bazillion times better, and older editions suck, and the older editions drove us away from D&D, blah blah.
> 
> Now they are the one's crying about the loss of "their game"-What goes around comes around I reckon.




Except that the 3E fans were quite correct about 2E and the 4E fans are totally wrong about 3.5. 3.5 is the last edition of D&D.


----------



## Jack99

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Now I'm picturing Jack or Wisdom Penalty doing this when they opened 4e:
> 
> YouTube - Wii Scream - Just the Scream




Lol... 

Rather close


----------



## Ydars

I have a dream; that in this great year we shall all be judged by the content of our characters, and not by the "colour" of our edition!

I will see you in the promised land.


----------



## garyh

Tetsubo said:


> Except that the 3E fans were quite correct about 2E and the 4E fans are totally wrong about 3.5. 3.5 is the last edition of D&D.




I've seen you say that before.  The thing is, that's wrong.  It says "D&D" right on my 4e books, and you can still have a party of a fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard killing things and taking their stuff.

You don't have to like 4e, but claiming it isn't D&D is insulting.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

garyh said:


> You don't have to like 4e, but claiming it isn't D&D is insulting.




In fact, I'd say it's blatant trolling.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Now I'm picturing Jack or Wisdom Penalty doing this when they opened 4e:
> 
> YouTube - Wii Scream - Just the Scream




Heh heh heh. I'm a bit older than that kid, but my reaction was largely similar. 

Praise Kord that WotC "lowered the bar" enough to create a game I thoroughly enjoy.

Happy New Year -
The 4E Avenger


----------



## Campbell

Psion said:


> You aren't talking about my PbP are you?
> 
> Because there's a good chance it could get downright _combative_ over the run.
> 
> But being who I am (see my Robin Laws style breakdown in sig), there's always going to be a story behind it.




I was actually talking about my current face to face game. I actually prefer 3e for PbP games (I think 3e's flaws are less of a problem in PbP games, and what 4e offers to face to face games doesn't translate over as well to the PbP medium).

Despite our differences in edition preferences, I'd say our gaming styles are pretty congruent. I like to have combative elements (100% Tactician as well as Storyteller). I just need more than combat to hang my hat on.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Jack99 said:


> This is probably the smartest thing I have read on these boards for a while.




What WotC is thinking, though, is that since more people play than DM, it is smart to put out books that target players. The audience is bigger. Whatever you think about the ramifications of the strategy, it is hard to argue with their financial incentives for their actions.


----------



## Jack99

Merlin's Shadow said:


> What WotC is thinking, though, is that since more people play than DM, it is smart to put out books that target players. The audience is bigger. Whatever you think about the ramifications of the strategy, it is hard to argue with their financial incentives for their actions.




Of course. And I do not expect WotC to produce anything less than they do. I just think we might have a better game, if there wasn't a gazillion books coming out every year. On the other hand, I do like them, and buy them.


----------



## DaveMage

One of the reasons I'm staying 3.5 though, is that because of all the rules options in 3.5, I feel that 4E came out too soon.  I have not had an opportunity to try anywhere near the number of the options that 3.5 has to offer, and I'm looking forward to exploring that before I move on.  I have a hunch that others feel the same way.  

Now, the options in 3.5 are nearly infinite, so there's no way I will be able to try them all, but because I did buy so much stuff, I feel it would be (for me) irresponsible in some ways to switch editions at this time (unless, of course, all the 3.5 stuff I bought could still be used with the new edition pretty much as is).

Therefore, the problem may continue for those that buy-in to 4E.   Since the new-edition-every-few-years model is what has been embraced, those that fall in love with and buy all of the 4E supplements might have an equally difficult time with a 5th edition, and thus the market continues to fracture.

Hence, it's bad for the game long term.  If WotC embraces the "squeeze all the $$ out of 'em we can now" philosophy, we will indeed see this again when (if) 5E is released, unless 4E books can easily be used with 5E.


----------



## Jhaelen

Still playing 3E without having given 4E a try.

The only thing that has changed since the previous poll is that the three core rulebooks are now available in German.

However, 
- my 3E campaign is still not over (and probably won't be for another year)
- there's still no psionic classes available
- there's still no good campaign setting available (Eberron or Earthdawn [aka Age of Legend])

As an additional complication the German rulebooks will only be available until end of March (because the publisher decided not to refresh the D&D license), so the chance of me changing over has actually decreased.

Ah, well, having just bought a ton of the DCC adventures, I could probably continue playing 3E for about 50 years...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

600 votes.

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  56%
  Partial Changeover:  11%

  30% choosing Option 6 (tried 4E, went back to earlier editions)


----------



## Treebore

Jack99 said:


> Only if the 1k who vote are representative of the boards as a whole. See my example from WoW. It ain't always true.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible, I can't deny that. Or perhaps it would just be some other people arguing.
> 
> Happy New Year!





Polls most often use only about 1,000 respondents. Such polls accurately reflected how 230 million people voted last November. Within their +/-3 of error.
That is why statistics is so powerful, you can ask only a few people about a specific question, or set of questions, and it will accurately reflect the opinions/choices of a much larger number.

So 1,000 respondents on ENWorld, who are gamers from across the country, from every demographic that likely exists within the RPG community as a whole, will give worthwhile results.

Even if most of them are DM's, those DM's do have a good feeling for what their groups feelings are.

So this poll is a solid indicator. Could a better one be formulated? Definitely. However this information does reflect the general RPG gamer population, its accuracy may be high or low, but it will have a degree of accuracy, and that accuracy is identifiable once the formula's are applied.

So even if the accuracy is only +/- 10% it is still meaningful, just less so than polls where accuracy of +/- 3% are achievable. 

So if I was to go for a better poll I would like better demographic information, such as age, income levels, marital status, etc...  However, that data would be for things beyond the question of this poll, such as possible financial implications on purchasing habits.

This poll is a very good indicator of the base question, how many gamers play 4E D&D in comparison to some other form of D&D. WOTC would like to have everyone voting in this poll to vote for 4E, the fact that so many don't does tell them something meaningful, they aren't grabbing the hard core long term buying gamers like they would like too. The "serious gamer" is the group that the vast majority of their long term purchases come from, not the casual gaming community. ENWorld is definitely reflective of the serious portion of the RPG community as a whole.

No, this poll would not be as valid on the WOTC boards. Presumably everyone there are fans of 4E, or the vast majority is. Same situation at PAizo, 3E fans are likely predominant on the Paizo boards. Here, and at other boards like RPG.net, you have gamers of all types, who don't play only "X" game or edition. So this board is the best place to get as broad a range of respondents as possible.

The only way we will get better data is if WOTC sends questionaires to every mailing address they ever had for Dungeon and Dragon magazine, to reach players of every edition of D&D. Putting it in their 4E books won't work, you'll only get responses from people who play/like 4E or hate it. Hardly anything in between.

So ENWorld is a very good pool of people to poll.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

We need another 400 votes if this poll is to acquire the same number of votes as the first Changeover poll received.


----------



## Lord Ipplepop

I didn't read all 15 pages of responses, so someone has more than likely mentioned this response; however, when 4ed came out, I went to my local B&N and sat there reading the Players Handboook. As soon as I turned the final page, I walked up to the counter, handed the book to the cashier (who happened to be the manager) and told her to send it back and not order any more of them. Her response was to laugh and ask why she had been getting that same response all week.

To be fair, there are a few of the new rules that I would more than likely give a try were it the consensus of my group; however, there were not that many, and certainly not enough to make me switch.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Lord Ipplepop said:
			
		

> I didn't read all 15 pages of responses, so someone has more than likely mentioned this response; however, when 4ed came out, I went to my local B&N and sat there reading the Players Handboook. As soon as I turned the final page, I walked up to the counter, handed the book to the cashier (who happened to be the manager) and told her to send it back and not order any more of them. Her response was to laugh and ask why she had been getting that same response all week.




Um...no. No one else mentioned that response in the previous 15 pages. But I'm sure B&N owes you a cut for saving them money.

@DaveMage: I have a library of 3e (and 1e) material that is no longer useful around the table, though it is still fun to peruse. I suspect those editions (esp. 1e) are much better in that regard; 4e doesn't seem like a "fun to peruse" type of style. That said, I've sworn to only purchase the "essential" 4e books this time around - PHB, DMB, MM, and the Powers books. I still don't like that the game (IMO) needs additional books to be complete, and I'd prefer to have 2-3 new books per year, but it is what it is.

The P


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Only 12 new votes, in as many hours.

  Results unchanged.


----------



## Truth Seeker

No 4E for me...


----------



## Alzrius

I never tried 4E, mostly because I can't seem to get a group together nowadays. That said, I'm perfectly happy with 3.5E, and feel no particular desire to switch editions.


----------



## BryonD

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Praise Kord that WotC "lowered the bar" enough to create a game I thoroughly enjoy.



Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled they make a game that works for you.
I just wish we could *also* have ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for people like me.

Granted, Paizo has pretty much filled that need.


----------



## BryonD

Wulf Ratbane said:


> In fact, I'd say it's blatant trolling.




I don't think calling 4E "not D&D" is either insulting nor necessarily trolling.  It is way to stupid a claim to really qualify as either.

I mean come on, even Spelljammer was D&D....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

BryonD said:


> I mean come on, even Spelljammer was D&D....




You can have my Giant Space Hamster when you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands!


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

BryonD said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled they make a game that works for you. I just wish we could *also* have ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for people like me. Granted, Paizo has pretty much filled that need.




Define "ADVANCED" - I just don't get it. Do you base that adjective on the number of options, the complexity of the rule system, the calculations required during gameplay? I'm not being an ass here, believe it or not - I'm truly interested in what that word means to you and, moreover, why that word cannot be applied to 4e from your perspective.

I've been playing "Advanced" D&D - or whatever incarnation was currently out there - for over 30 years. I don't think I'm fearful of weightier rules systems, should such system improve the enjoyment factor of the game. I don't see 4e as any more or less "advanced" than previous versions, though I will concur it's much more streamlined and lacks the options prevalent in the previous version (a fact, I contend, that should be attributed to 4e's infancy).

As for Paizo...I'm going to have to say goodnight. I think they've made a system that was needlessly complex (3e) into a _more_ complex system. What need was there for that?  Bear in mind, please, I'm not knocking 3e - there are many, many awesome points about that system, some of which are sadly lacking in 4e.

WP


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Another 13 votes.

  No change in the results.  Holding at 32/56/12.

  I need another 300 votes before this poll can be compared with the first Changeover Poll.


----------



## BryonD

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Define "ADVANCED" - I just don't get it.



Nope.

Not gonna go down that road for the 400th time.
You yourself on many occasions have proclaimed the great headaches that you endured trying to manage 3E.  They solved that problem for you at the expense of a wide range of the parts of the game I find most enjoyable.  

You can easily find multitudes of threads describing a laundry list of complaints, revisit those if you need more detail.

You don't get it.  Fine.  That really makes no difference one way or the other.

You consider 3E "needlessly complex", I consider 4E to be very much inadequately complex. 

3E is certainly not perfect and 4E is certainly not horrid.  But for the level of game I want, 3E is pretty much at the mark and 4E isn't close enough to be worth investing my time for anything beyond a one-shot or such.


----------



## BryonD

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You can have my Giant Space Hamster when you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands!



Have it?  Who said I want the thing??!!??


----------



## Beginning of the End

Treebore said:


> Polls most often use only about 1,000 respondents. Such polls accurately reflected how 230 million people voted last November. Within their +/-3 of error.
> That is why statistics is so powerful, you can ask only a few people about a specific question, or set of questions, and it will accurately reflect the opinions/choices of a much larger number.
> 
> So 1,000 respondents on ENWorld, who are gamers from across the country, from every demographic that likely exists within the RPG community as a whole, will give worthwhile results.




One of the most basic things that go wrong with any poll is when you allow the sample to become non-representative. You're looking at a sample of gamers who (a) choose to participate in online communities; (b) choose to participate in this online community; and (c) choose to participate in this poll.

All of those factors significantly warp the poll. I'm willing to accept that it's a fairly accurate assessment of the mood of the board (although even there the self-selection factor will have a significant impact), but for any wider demographic it's essentially irrelevant.



> The only way we will get better data is if WOTC sends questionaires to every mailing address they ever had for Dungeon and Dragon magazine, to reach players of every edition of D&D.




Uh, no.

First, the people who subscribe to Dungeon and Dragon are a self-selecting subset. Second, the method you're suggesting warps the result towards those who don't move. Finally, the method you're suggesting probably still warps the results to active players (who are more likely to respond to a mail poll like this).

If you wanted better data, you'd perform the type of market research that Ryan Dancey had performed and then released publicly.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

BryonD said:
			
		

> Nope. Not gonna go down that road for the 400th time.




You had to admit - it was worth a shot. I was in an expansive and generous mood in light of the New Year, and I had hoped to gain some insight into what makes BryonD tick. 

If you ever decide you have the time or inclination to explain your views, consider my shoulder always open for you to lean your head upon. 

WP


----------



## DaveMage

I hear The Love Boat theme!!!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:


> I hear The Love Boat theme!!!




You're gonna need a bigger boat.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I hear The Love Boat theme!!!











Dear Bryon -

4E, exciting and new
Come aboard, we're expecting you
Love, life's sweetest reward
Let it flow, it floats back to you...

Love,
WP


----------



## merelycompetent

I voted: Tried 4E, went back to an earlier edition.

I read the previews with relish. I really liked what the designers were talking about - especially making 4E more DM-friendly, and supporting high-level play. I was a little nervous about the warnings that existing campaigns would not be (easily) convertible to 4E, but took a wait-and-see approach.

Then I got the 4E Core Rules, and my jaw hit the floor.

The campaign world that I have worked on through four editions of the game was incompatible with the race and cosmology changes. Some of the class changes, on read-through, would require reworking parts of the campaign setting. There was no conversion available to go from 3.5E to 4E. On top of that, I'd have to wait for certain classes to be published that used to be considered core - such as the Druid. I'd end up re-designing and re-writing too much of my main campaign setting to handle 4E mechanics. As a DM with this campaign world, I am no longer part of WotC's target customer base.

As a player, I'm very open to 4E. I'd love to really take the rules for a test run. As a DM, I'm willing to run some one-shots to really see if the new mechanics work like I think they will. But unless inspiration strikes in a good way, someone else comes up with a usable conversion, or I decide to scrap my main campaign setting, I'm going to just cherry-pick some ideas, and not purchase anything beyond the 4E Core Rules.

Don't get me wrong: 4E looks *cool*. And if I ever scrap my main campaign setting, I'll probably use it (if it's still the main supported edition). But that is not likely to happen soon with characters at only 13th level.


----------



## Zustiur

merelycompetent said:


> The campaign world that I have worked on through four editions of the game was incompatible with the race and cosmology changes.



 Yes I had that problem too. And I haven't even started the campaign in question. I've been piecing it together a little bit at a time over the last couple of years, while being a player rather than a DM. Several hours into looking at the 4E rulebooks, I knew it just wasn't going to work, so I promptly dropped the idea of using 4E. I could run my game in 0-3.5, but not in 4. Too many sacred cows got shot. The design does not have enough similarity for me.


----------



## El Mahdi

Treebore said:


> Polls most often use only about 1,000 respondents. Such polls accurately reflected how 230 million people voted last November. Within their +/-3 of error.
> That is why statistics is so powerful, you can ask only a few people about a specific question, or set of questions, and it will accurately reflect the opinions/choices of a much larger number.
> 
> So 1,000 respondents on ENWorld, who are gamers from across the country, from every demographic that likely exists within the RPG community as a whole, will give worthwhile results.
> 
> Even if most of them are DM's, those DM's do have a good feeling for what their groups feelings are.
> 
> So this poll is a solid indicator. Could a better one be formulated? Definitely. However this information does reflect the general RPG gamer population, its accuracy may be high or low, but it will have a degree of accuracy, and that accuracy is identifiable once the formula's are applied.
> 
> So even if the accuracy is only +/- 10% it is still meaningful, just less so than polls where accuracy of +/- 3% are achievable.
> 
> So if I was to go for a better poll I would like better demographic information, such as age, income levels, marital status, etc... However, that data would be for things beyond the question of this poll, such as possible financial implications on purchasing habits.
> 
> This poll is a very good indicator of the base question, how many gamers play 4E D&D in comparison to some other form of D&D. WOTC would like to have everyone voting in this poll to vote for 4E, the fact that so many don't does tell them something meaningful, they aren't grabbing the hard core long term buying gamers like they would like too. The "serious gamer" is the group that the vast majority of their long term purchases come from, not the casual gaming community. ENWorld is definitely reflective of the serious portion of the RPG community as a whole.
> 
> No, this poll would not be as valid on the WOTC boards. Presumably everyone there are fans of 4E, or the vast majority is. Same situation at PAizo, 3E fans are likely predominant on the Paizo boards. Here, and at other boards like RPG.net, you have gamers of all types, who don't play only "X" game or edition. So this board is the best place to get as broad a range of respondents as possible.
> 
> The only way we will get better data is if WOTC sends questionaires to every mailing address they ever had for Dungeon and Dragon magazine, to reach players of every edition of D&D. Putting it in their 4E books won't work, you'll only get responses from people who play/like 4E or hate it. Hardly anything in between.
> 
> So ENWorld is a very good pool of people to poll.




Read_This


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

651 votes.

  33% Changeover
  56% No Changeover
  11% Partial Changeover


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(look of surprise)

  I wish to point out something that is surprising me here:

  I find it a little bit of an Eye-Opener that almost as many people have chosen Option 6 (Tried 4E, returned to earlier editions) as people who chose Options 1 and Options 2 combined (Changeover.)

  Changeover:  33%
  Option 6 (Tried 4E, went back to earlier editions)  30%

  Had *all* those who tried 4E stuck with it, then the Changovers would number 63%, and the No Changeovers would number 27%.  
  In that case, the Changeovers would have had a greater than 63/27 split over the No Changeovers.  
  Instead, the No Changeovers have close to a 56/33 split over the Changeovers.  
  In short, what would have been a 60/30 split one way, is a 60/30 split the other way.
  All because of the 30% who chose Option 6.

  At least, that is information in this particular poll.  

  I'm not taking sides ... or even saying my poll is valid ... merely expressing some surprise at these numbers.

  -

  Since those who chose Option 7 number only 27%, that means that 73% of those responding to this poll, have at least tried 4th Edition D&D.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I'm not taking sides ... or even saying my poll is valid ... merely expressing some surprise at these numbers.




Those numbers are certainly eye-popping for me. There seem to be a few plausible possibilities:

(1) ENWorld has become 4th Edition unfriendly in a way similar to Paizo. (This seems unlikely to me given the lengths to which ENWorld has tried to keep itself friendly and open to supporters of all editions.)

(2) 3rd Edition diehards are more likely to vote in this kind of poll because they want to "prove" that 4th Edition isn't being accepted while 4th Edition supporters just don't care as much about the horse race any more.

(3) 4th Edition is meeting with lower acceptance rates among dedicated/engaged/informed gamers.

(4) 4th Edition is failing in the marketplace. (Which is potentially fantastic news for Paizo.)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

We need the 1,000 votes the first Changeover Poll got.
  Then, I can draw upon the results of that poll, and do some comparisons.  Not until then.

  Nevertheless, the results are there, with the vote so far.  I can't explain these results.

  I hope that the rest of ENWorld will come to this poll and vote.


----------



## Zustiur

Beginning of the End said:


> (1) ENWorld has become 4th Edition unfriendly in a way similar to Paizo. (This seems unlikely to me given the lengths to which ENWorld has tried to keep itself friendly and open to supporters of all editions.)
> 
> (2) 3rd Edition diehards are more likely to vote in this kind of poll because they want to "prove" that 4th Edition isn't being accepted while 4th Edition supporters just don't care as much about the horse race any more.
> 
> (3) 4th Edition is meeting with lower acceptance rates among dedicated/engaged/informed gamers.
> 
> (4) 4th Edition is failing in the marketplace. (Which is potentially fantastic news for Paizo.)




I'd argue:
(5) While not being unfriendly to 4E, ENWorld is still a community that formed based on the love of 3E, and that love still holds a lot of us. 

This site was created due to 3E, and it stands to reason that many of the people who frequent it are of the appropriate personality/game style/whatever that would continue to prefer 3E rather than something as different as 4E.


----------



## Samurai

Edena_of_Neith said:


> We need the 1,000 votes the first Changeover Poll got.
> Then, I can draw upon the results of that poll, and do some comparisons.  Not until then.
> 
> Nevertheless, the results are there, with the vote so far.  I can't explain these results.
> 
> I hope that the rest of ENWorld will come to this poll and vote.




I really don't think you need 1000 votes.  First of all, there's no guarantee that it's the same 1000 people... in fact, it definitely won't be.  Second, this poll fails to account for 1 important group... those who were excited about 4e's release and looked at ENWorld when it first came out, and now no longer visit... maybe because they've found another site such as WotC forums, or because they've stopped playing D&D, or some other reason.

It's the percentages that matter most, and at over 650 votes, I think you have enough to draw at least some conclusions.  And the fact that 350 fewer people voted in this poll than the identical one right after release is interesting in itself, IMO.


----------



## BryonD

Wisdom Penalty said:


> You had to admit - it was worth a shot. I was in an expansive and generous mood in light of the New Year, and I had hoped to gain some insight into what makes BryonD tick.
> 
> If you ever decide you have the time or inclination to explain your views, consider my shoulder always open for you to lean your head upon.
> 
> WP



I again refer your to hundreds of prior threads, many of which you participated in, in which detailed insight into what makes me tick are provided and my views are explained in great detail.  It isn't remotely a secret, its just that I'm no longer motivated to further pound my head against that wall nor to potentially derail threads like this one with the various point by point back and forth that never gets anywhere.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Beginning of the End said:


> (2) 3rd Edition diehards are more likely to vote in this kind of poll because they want to "prove" that 4th Edition isn't being accepted while 4th Edition supporters just don't care as much about the horse race any more.




Uh huh. 



> (4) 4th Edition is failing in the marketplace. (Which is potentially fantastic news for Paizo.)




D&D failing in the marketplace is not fantastic news for gamers of any stripe, competitors or not.


----------



## Filcher

Running a game is personality thing. The world isn't generic and blase; it reflects you. A game's rules should be the same way: reflective of the Game *Master*.

The quest for the "searchable PDF with a rule for everything" is a crutch, IMO, separating us from the roots of the game. 

I have some GM friends that love this ethos, but that's their D&D, not mine. I'm sure they dislike my "fly by seat of pants/I'll make a rule when I get there," style.


----------



## Treebore

Beginning of the End said:


> One of the most basic things that go wrong with any poll is when you allow the sample to become non-representative. You're looking at a sample of gamers who (a) choose to participate in online communities; (b) choose to participate in this online community; and (c) choose to participate in this poll.
> 
> All of those factors significantly warp the poll. I'm willing to accept that it's a fairly accurate assessment of the mood of the board (although even there the self-selection factor will have a significant impact), but for any wider demographic it's essentially irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> First, the people who subscribe to Dungeon and Dragon are a self-selecting subset. Second, the method you're suggesting warps the result towards those who don't move. Finally, the method you're suggesting probably still warps the results to active players (who are more likely to respond to a mail poll like this).
> 
> If you wanted better data, you'd perform the type of market research that Ryan Dancey had performed and then released publicly.




Let me re iterate, I worked for two years doing statistics, intensely. Looking in particular at confounds and how to remove them or use a formula to account for them. What you bring up are not confounds, but problems with understanding what confounds really are.

Plus anyone who agrees to answer a poll is self selecting, so by your reasoning all polls are self selecting and invalid, and they aren't. 

So people can keep pretending they know and understand statistics, what are confounds, and what makes for valid and invalid survey questions, but I spent two years analyzing such questions, and solving such problems, so I'll stick with what I know to be true.

Believe me, I had similar discussions with people with Masters degrees in Statistical analysis and two with PhD's, so these questions are the same kinds of questions true experts deal with. This is because they tend to strive to make their data as unquestionable as possible, because their professional reputations are on the line.

So the questions and points are good ones to ask/discuss, but ones that have been discussed and worked out by very knowledgeable experts, whose knowledge I benefited from. 


So rest assured getting responses from gamers on this forum about RPG's they have "tried out" is just as valid a way to collect such data as any other method of collection. Depending on what kind of data you want, even better, since there appears to be such a high number of people who have been playing a long time, and are DM's. They are "experts" in the field.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> (4) 4th Edition is failing in the marketplace. (Which is potentially fantastic news for Paizo.)




More accurately, 4Ed is failing in the marketplace to convert the established base.  From its sales numbers, its doing just fine as a RPG product in and of itself on the force of sales to converts and new blood.


----------



## SteveC

A very interesting thread. From what I have seen, there is a large part of the ENWorld base (the oldschool posters) who haven't embraced 4E for whatever reason. The majority of posters that I tend to agree with who have been around here since the beginning seem to have not changed over. I made that comment a few months ago (it may have been the last poll) where you had all of these posters with mult-thousand post counts who had not gone to 4E.

Frankly, I don't think that's a good sign for WotC.

For me, with all of it's flaws, I voted "gone to 4E, not looking back." I know that 4E isn't exactly the game I was looking for, but the horror of running my last higher level 3X game means I'll never be going back. When I ran Shackled City and the combat at the temple of Wee Jas took me over a month to run in weekly sessions, and the players were referring to it as a siege, I knew the edition had hit the wall for me. For those whose mileage varies, more power to you.

--Steve


----------



## Alzrius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> More accurately, 4Ed is failing in the marketplace to convert the established base.  From its sales numbers, its doing just fine as a RPG product in and of itself on the force of sales to converts and new blood.




This may not be true. While the Core Rulebooks (that is, the PHB, DMG, and MM) seem to be selling well, it wasn't that long ago that Chris Pramas said that some people in the book retail industry told him that 4E splatbooks were selling the way 3.5E splatbooks did in their last year on the market.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Splatbooks are always going to be slow sellers in comparison to the Core books- they're aimed more at DMs and completists, with a smattering of those interested in EXACTLY what the splatbook is modeling.

The Core 3 is where you really need to look at sales figures to analyze the health of the game and what trends are in developing.


----------



## Barcode

Zustiur said:


> I'd argue:
> (5) While not being unfriendly to 4E, ENWorld is still a community that formed based on the love of 3E, and that love still holds a lot of us.
> 
> This site was created due to 3E, and it stands to reason that many of the people who frequent it are of the appropriate personality/game style/whatever that would continue to prefer 3E rather than something as different as 4E.




Are there any messageboards that are as sympathetic and supportive of 4e as ENWorld was for 3e in the beginning?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If there is any indication that the posting population of ENWorld is NOT representative of the gaming populace in general, its this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-enworlder-how-long-have-you-been-gaming.html

However, to know for sure, someone would have to find and post some actual demographics for the hobby.  Right now, we have nothing to compare it to, AFAIK.


----------



## Greylock

The group I'm in was playing Castles & Crusades when 4th Edition came out, and had been for almost two years, so we were all on the sidelines during the initial phases. Several of us, including both DMs, bought the core 4th Edition books out of curiosity and read them. When the Castles & Crusades game ended, no one was even remotely interested in playing 4th. I think one fellow in the group did some one shots, but the rest of us, no. But we'd read the books and read the forums, and discussed it amongst ourselves. 

When the new game began, the fellow who took the DMing reins decided to stick with 3.x, and we couldn't be happier.


----------



## Samurai

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If there is any indication that the posting population of ENWorld is NOT representative of the gaming populace in general, its this thread:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-enworlder-how-long-have-you-been-gaming.html
> 
> However, to know for sure, someone would have to find and post some actual demographics for the hobby.  Right now, we have nothing to compare it to, AFAIK.




I think what that poll shows is that ENWorlders tend to be the very committed, long-time gamers, dedicated to this hobby, with loads of experience in gaming.  By and large, not many part-time, casual, or newbie gamers here.

I wonder if the hardcore gamers are too important a demographic to ignore... can 4e succeed by targeting mainly new or casual gamers instead of those most dedicated to the hobby?

So, if the grognerds of gaming don't seem to care for 4e, is that because it's focused on attracting new gamers instead?  Is it because all these old gamers already have established campaigns with years, even decades of play, and 4e went too far from previous editions to make switching over easy? (vast differences in spells and abilities, missing races and classes, etc).  I can't speak for everyone, but that was our case... years invested in the campaign and characters, and several of the characters were untranslatable to 4e, so we've stuck with 3.5.


----------



## Ydars

I am not sure why this poll result (or any of the others) surprises anyone.

WoTC set out to ignore their existing customer base ( the "Old guard", mean age 30+ according to WoTC; represented strongly on ENWorld), in order to try to hook younger people into playing D&D (not well represented here yet and probably intimidated by the rancour that sometimes accompanies edition wars on this thread, hence are effectively lurkers).

The goal of bringing in new blood was/is obviously a great idea; the execution IMHO disasterously mismanaged and ill concieved. I wonder how many new gamers they actually have invested in D&D?

That 4E has fractured the old guard is still disputed, but it seems very clear to me that this fracture is real and significant. I think this is a serious miscalculation on WoTC's part but they clearly expected some loss of the old-timers, though perhaps not to the degree they have got now. 

I think with hindsight, this ignoring the old guard will rank as one of the stupidest mistakes WoTC have ever made with respect to D&D; especially when Ryan Dancey once pointed out that the only effective competitor that D&D would ever have to reckon with was a previous edition of the game. 

In this light, the handling of the GSL with the resulting Paizo debacle seems incomprehensibly arrogant. WoTC simply don't seem to realise that they/3PPs put out so much material under the aegis of 3.5/OGL that the old guard don't need them anymore. Such old guard already have a lifetime supply of material and so will have to be enticed back to D&D, possibly with a new edition.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Samurai said:


> I wonder if the hardcore gamers are too important a demographic to ignore... can 4e succeed by targeting mainly new or casual gamers instead of those most dedicated to the hobby?




Personally, I don't think we should have been, but I do think the game can succeed on the basis of new blood.  4Ed Core is outselling previous editions.  At the very least, that's an indicator that it should do _at least as well_ as the next most successful games other than 3.5 out there- your HERO, GURPS, WoD and the like.



> Is it because all these old gamers already have established campaigns with years, even decades of play, and 4e went too far from previous editions to make switching over easy? (vast differences in spells and abilities, missing races and classes, etc).  I can't speak for everyone, but that was our case... years invested in the campaign and characters, and several of the characters were untranslatable to 4e, so we've stuck with 3.5.




That was a MAJOR factor in the decision for both of my game groups to ignore 4Ed.  I'm the only person in either group who bought the 4Ed Core 3.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

707 votes.

  Changeover:  31%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  11%

  Option 6 voters:  30%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Wulf Ratbane said:


> D&D failing in the marketplace is not fantastic news for gamers of any stripe, competitors or not.




  I wish simply to say that I am in profound agreement with you.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I wish to venture an opinion.

  It should never be a case of 4E or 3E or 2E or 1E or OD&D.  Or C&D.  Or Pathfinder.  Or (put your game of choice here.)

  It should never be a choice of playing 4E FR or 3E FR or 2E FR or 1E FR.
  It should never be a choice of playing DL or AQ or BR or SL or RS or GH or LM or MY or SJ or PS or DS.
  It should never be a choice of playing Kalamar or Eberron.
  It should never be this *or* that.

  It should be a case of this *AND* that, that AND that, that AND the other, that AND yet another.

  I think most of the people at WOTC believe in *this and that* , whether those working there now, or those from Way Back Then.

  I think most people at ENWorld and the other boards, also believe in *this and that.*

  The Changeover Poll presumes a *this OR that* only scenario.  I do not believe in or want this scenario.  I do not believe in the precepts of my own poll.

  Unfortunately ... the *this or that* scenario seems to have occurred, in spite of the fact that none of us want it.  So, we have polls like this one.  My apologies, folks.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Jasperak

Edena_of_Neith said:


> The Changeover Poll presumes a *this OR that* only scenario.  I do not believe in or want this scenario.  I do not believe in the precepts of my own poll.
> 
> Unfortunately ... the *this or that* scenario seems to have occurred, in spite of the fact that none of us want it.  So, we have polls like this one.  My apologies, folks.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> Edena_of_Neith




Are your beliefs about the poll because it shows for the small amount that have responded that 590/709 are part of that either-or group. 

I don't want 4e to fail (and I cannot imagine that it would even come close to failing) but in my extremely limited experience with it and players that prefer it over 3e, I much prefer they play in their game and I will continue to play in mine (which happens to be 1e/2e and may make a transition to Warhammer Fantasy.) I seem to have more in common in play style with pre-4e players than 4e. 4e caters to a different play style and that is ok.


----------



## kitsune9

My group went with Pathfinder. Never tried 4e though I own the books though my players have played in session or two of 4e with other gaming groups. I only have time for one gaming group thus the reason for not getting around to 4e.


----------



## Samuel Leming

Edena_of_Neith said:


> It should be a case of this *AND* that, that AND that, that AND the other, that AND yet another.



That would be nice, but I've only time for one RPG session per week.

Sam


----------



## Darkwolf71

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Personally, I don't think we should have been, but I do think the game can succeed on the basis of new blood.  4Ed Core is outselling previous editions.  At the very least, that's an indicator that it should do _at least as well_ as the next most successful games other than 3.5 out there- your HERO, GURPS, WoD and the like.



The potential problem with focusing so much on the 'new target' audience is that the members of that audience may move on to 'the next big thing' quickly. How many of the guys & gals we gamed with years ago are still playing? I can't answer that question since I am not currently in contact with any of my high school gamer friends. The one whom I did recently chat with briefly no longer games at all. Of the 9 people I game with currently, only 2 besides myself have been at it for more than 5 years.

So, if the old guard has chosen not to move to the new game, will the newer, younger generation that is often stereotyped for it's short attention span stay with it? Maybe they will. Maybe the gamble will pay off and 4e will be the WoW of tabletop RPGs. (I use the comparison only in terms of success, so put down the torches.) Or it could turn out to be more like Vanguard, look good as hell out of the gate, but ultimately bomb. And of course there is plenty of room between the two extremes.


----------



## Treebore

The only bad thing about this poll, and it still does not make it unusable, but does prevent a direct comparison to the one done 6 months ago, is how many of the voters voting this time voted last time.

Even though direct comparison to the last poll is not validly possible, this is still shaping up to be a rather negative picture for WOTC.

Which I don't like, because I do believe the RPG hobby does need a solid flagship to keep the hobby moving forward. This polls is shaping up to say WOTC made a huge misstep. Like others have been mentioning, that probably is not a good thing for our hobby.

I doubt the next 300 voters will be almost exclusively for 4E, and even if they do end up going that way, it would still say that 4E hasn't gained any ground in the RPG community in the last 6 months. Still not good, but at least it wouldn't be as bad as losing ground.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I think most of the people at WOTC believe in *this and that* , whether those working there now, or those from Way Back Then.



That's a nice thought, and it ultimately might even be true.

But it's not how 4E was marketed.  4E was marketed by direct comparison to 3E, with 3E in a negative light.  Some people argue that the designers weren't saying, "Look how much Third Edition sucks," and we can disagree on whether they were saying that or not, but the designers were absolutely _not_ saying "4E _and_ 3E."

You didn't create "this or that."  IMO, it was inevitable, but it literally started with 4E's designers.  And I'm not saying that as an accusation.  If you're selling a new product, you don't say, "Look, the old product is still great."  I'm just pointing out that "this _or_ that" was, as I said, inevitable.


----------



## Hawklord

All 3 DMs in our grouip took a look at 4e and had the same response "no thanks!"  so we'll be sticking with 3e.

AS far as the poll I think its intersting. If such a high proportion of  hard-core gamers (and thus purchasers) have turned away from 4e it could mean they have made a serious misstep. I know I pretty much bought everything  that WOTC put out for 3/3.5 but they haveny had a penny of mine since 4e came out. - statistically irrelevant or not.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Ydars said:


> That 4E has fractured the old guard is still disputed, but it seems very clear to me that this fracture is real and significant. I think this is a serious miscalculation on WoTC's part but they clearly expected some loss of the old-timers, though perhaps not to the degree they have got now.
> 
> I think with hindsight, this ignoring the old guard will rank as one of the stupidest mistakes WoTC have ever made with respect to D&D; especially when Ryan Dancey once pointed out that the only effective competitor that D&D would ever have to reckon with was a previous edition of the game.




I'm skeptical.  I think just having the moniker "D&D" branded on it will ensure sales for the first year or two at least.  I think tossing out power creeping splatbooks left and right will hold sales steady after that.  I think that 4E cannot "fail."  Either it survives for 8+ years (obviously good), or craps out after a few, which in turn means that a new edition of the game will be "needed."  Whichever happens, WotC will do just fine.

The size of the "grognard" section of gamers is stagnant, WotC may be hurt without the majority of them, but it's hardly a death blow.  If they do attract lots of new people, it will offset the loss.  The last part about competing with previous editions is pretty spot on, though.  If there were to be a major factor in 4E under-performing, it will be not because of the business decisions or even the game system they put out recently, but because of the much less restrictive gaming license and quality product they put out previously.  I know I'd be much more amenable to 4E if 3E/OGL didn't exist.


----------



## Duskblade

Well, I can't answer any of the above. My GM has decided that he doesn't even care for the whole of 4E enough to try to run a one-shot of it with our group.

We are upgrading to Pathfinder next week and will be incorporating some 4E elements.


----------



## merelycompetent

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I wish to venture an opinion...




My sincerest apologies if this is a threadjack. I think that your opinion holds great value and understanding of my particular situation with D&D 4E. I gather from reading various posts that my situation is not uncommon.

For me, it is not a matter of what edition is best. It is a matter of what edition's mechanics best support the game/setting that I and the players enjoy.

I think 4E is a great game to introduce new players to D&D. Possibly the best edition for introducing new players to D&D since 1E. I don't know for certain because I am not currently recruiting "new" players. My game is currently on hiatus due to Real Life issues.

We were having fun. We're starting back up in March of this year. The players are all but threatening me bodily harm to start the campaign back up sooner. I am fortunate that my players encourage trying new stuff -- especially considering how I'm houseruling 3.5E so that I don't go insane with handling all the rules and high-level/epic-level adventures.

It seems that, by the current definitions of EnWorld, I'm a grognard, thought I hate and refuse that description, since (to me) "grognard" deescibes a dedicated wargamer. I'm not a wargamer. I'm a gamer, specifically a role-playing gamer. Don't call me a grognard - it's wrong, and almost insulting. I'm a gamer. It just happens that 4E mechanics, rulebooks, and splatbooks don't support the game I'm currently running. Call me old school. You won't be wrong, so long as you understand that I'm perfectly willing to try new stuff. Heck, I'm back-porting some pretty cool ideas from 4E to 3.5E, and still working on a new magic system for 3.5E (mainly because I'm bored with that aggravating Vancian memorize-and-forget annoyance, partly because I want a tool to help me define how powerful a spell is *before* I add it to the campaign, and partly because it generates some really cool ideas for new spells.)

I've been playing this game since before Basic D&D. I actually became a gamer right at the point where the Basic and Expert boxed sets were available at the hobby shop, the 1E PHB was in its 2nd or 3rd printing, and you could still mail order the Eldritch Wizardry supplement (which I am deeply privileged to have, along with a few other relics and artifacts). I am concerned about the changes brought in with 4E. I expect that, barring unexpected disasters of the TPK kind, the current campaign will take PCs to 30-40th level, have them facing Elder Gods, Ancient Evils, and Horrors from Beyond before the campaign ends. 4E supports an equivalent. 4E -- It, especially the mechanics and lack of conversion, just doesn't support my current game setting. The lack of GSL hurts, too. I've pulled a lot of ideas from other posters on EnWorld, and from purchases from 3rd party publishers (I'm looking at you, Necromancer, FatDragon, Paizo, Upper Krust, and others). 4E is a significant change from all previous editions. Perhaps too much change. That seriously bothers me. There is no convenient way to get from point C (3.5E) to point M (4E).

The extremity of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0 bothers me even more. I don't want to see WotC fail in any manner whatsoever. There are too many talented and skilled people involved, including 3PP, who are generating intriguing ideas - treasure worth its weight in platinum. But for now, 4E is not a game system I DM a campaign for. The rules mechanics make DMing a lot easier (thank you, WotC - 3.0 and 3.5 have been a nightmare of mechanics, especially after level 13-15), but the other changes - races, classes, cosmology, magic system, go too far. My current campaigns aren't done. I'm left high and dry by 4E, as a DM with a living, breathing, flourishing campaign setting. It is not a pleasant sensation. It also doesn't mean that I won't try 4E to see what it has to offer. It just changed too much, so what I was currently running couldn't change with it. The last ten plus years of campaign setting, supported by convertable mechanics, are no longer convertable in the details. And the devil, along with versimilitude and continuity, is in the details.

I no longer have the time in my blue/white collar life to devote to re-writing a campaign setting to a new paradigm. Maybe this change is necessary so that the hobby can gain new blood and continue to grow and evolve. Certainly, the work by the current designers is credible and admirable. Maybe this is a difficult or damaging, hopefully not fatal, step in the evolution of the hobby.

But for me, unless something unexpected happens, I won't be recruiting new players to 4E for the foreseeable future. That's an average of 1-2 new customers per year, since I've "retired" from open games at the local university and game store. But it's been *my* campaign, *my* playstyle, that's been recruiting new gamers - gamers who haven't played D&D (in any incarnation) before. The newest, latest, edition only offers me ideas. The mechanics kill my campaign. I don't want to pay $25 per splatbook/6 months DDI subscription to get the mechanics for core classes like druids and barbarians so my campaign can convert to 4E.

I don't know what impact my particular "class" of customer will have on 4E. WotC strikes me as being populated with very smart people. People who may very well look on me as a "fringe customer". There is nothing wrong with that. I still get to run my campaign the way I - and the players - enjoy, and WotC still gets to publish an immensely popular game. That is a win-win situation - the best kind. Five game sessions from now, I may have TPK, or the players may decide they want to scrap their current game for a brand new 4E one. I'm OK with that so long as I still get to have fun. I would hate to see a campaign setting with years of background get relegated to a pool of ideas. That happens, and it's OK. Evolve or die. Considering the players, and the campaign, I don't expect that to happen. But I am worried, at this time, by the fact that all the long-time DM's I personally know (please note that I'm excluding players - the view is even more dismal there), are *not* using, or buying, 4E products. I can account for a small percentage of the market, in a very remote market region. But the company that *is* my hobby no longer suports the game I play. This is cause for concern.

I hope that I am an isolated statistical point. But I worry that this poll indicates that I am not.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

If we fail to reach 1,000 votes, that could be a negative sign, yes.  It might, or might not, denote a decrease in interest in things (whether here, just on ENWorld, or elsewhere, I couldn't say.)

  But we are up to 710 votes, and the vote count is still rising.  The first poll received 986 votes, so we are slowly and steadily closing in on that number.  If we do, the question becomes moot.  If we exceed it, then we could speculate that there is more interest in things (which I would call a good thing)

  Why do I think about my own poll the way I do?
  I have said, above.  It is a long story, really.  Let me try for it another day.  (It has nothing to do with ENWorld, ENWorld posters, ENWorld in any way, or any board associated with ENWorld such as Circvs Maximvs.  It has, instead, everything to do with Hasbro.)


----------



## Samurai

Well said, Merelycompetent.  

I just want to point you and everyone else to a new thread and poll I forked off this thread... What would it take to win you (and other old-timers) over to 4E, if anything?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-old-guard-forked-thread-changeover-poll.html


----------



## merelycompetent

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Why do I think about my own poll the way I do? I have said, above.  It is a long story, really.  Let me try for it another day.  (It has nothing to do with ENWorld, ENWorld posters, ENWorld in any way, or any board associated with ENWorld such as Circvs Maximvs.  It has, instead, everything to do with Hasbro.)




Now I am curious, and actively watching a thread in a way I haven't for years.

Have you spotted something that the rest of us have missed, or developed a theory?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

merelycompetent said:


> My sincerest apologies if this is a threadjack. I think that your opinion holds great value and understanding of my particular situation with D&D 4E. I gather from reading various posts that my situation is not uncommon.




  Thank you for the compliment, sir.  Thanks much.
  And now you are chiming in with your opinion, and I will have a look here.



> For me, it is not a matter of what edition is best. It is a matter of what edition's mechanics best support the game/setting that I and the players enjoy.




  I agree with that thinking.  Just me, of course.
  Then again, *my* idea of the ideal D&D is different from most ideal games of most posters on ENWorld, so there you are.  
  We are all different in our outlooks, no?



> I think 4E is a great game to introduce new players to D&D. Possibly the best edition for introducing new players to D&D since 1E. I don't know for certain because I am not currently recruiting "new" players. My game is currently on hiatus due to Real Life issues.




  I must wonder if it is relevant anymore?
  In the 1960s, a completely different situation existed, culturally, technologically, economically, and socially, than the current one.
  The Young of today have YouTube (a program that continues to astound me) and video games, and computer games, and internet games, and card games, and ... well ... remember that back in those days, Face-to-Face Gaming was all we could *do.*
  We couldn't play any of the games mentioned above.  They did not exist yet.  And other competitors in the rping area itself had not yet emerged.

  *Any* edition of D&D, were it released now, would - I believe - have a really hard time making it, compared to the time OD&D had in the more friendly atmospherics of that older time.  
  4E?  It is up against all of these things.  These are not small hurdles for the game.



> We were having fun. We're starting back up in March of this year. The players are all but threatening me bodily harm to start the campaign back up sooner. I am fortunate that my players encourage trying new stuff -- especially considering how I'm houseruling 3.5E so that I don't go insane with handling all the rules and high-level/epic-level adventures.




  LOL.  I can see you have some eager players.  Cheers!
  Houseruling 3.5?  You have no choice!  Hehe.  That is built into the system, as it were.  (not easy to be a 3.5 DM, is it?)



> It seems that, by the current definitions of EnWorld, I'm a grognard, thought I hate and refuse that description, since (to me) "grognard" deescibes a dedicated wargamer. I'm not a wargamer. I'm a gamer, specifically a role-playing gamer. Don't call me a grognard - it's wrong, and almost insulting. I'm a gamer.




  I *NEVER* use that term.  It was meant to be an insultive term, so I refuse to use it.  Ever.
  Incidentally, I believe it meant, in a derogatory way, Old-Timer, not wargamer.  Could be wrong.  But no matter what it means, it was meant as a put-down, and I will not use the term.
  Yes, Gamer.  Now, THAT'S a term I like.  We are Gamers.  : )



> It just happens that 4E mechanics, rulebooks, and splatbooks don't support the game I'm currently running. Call me old school. You won't be wrong, so long as you understand that I'm perfectly willing to try new stuff. Heck, I'm back-porting some pretty cool ideas from 4E to 3.5E, and still working on a new magic system for 3.5E (mainly because I'm bored with that aggravating Vancian memorize-and-forget annoyance, partly because I want a tool to help me define how powerful a spell is *before* I add it to the campaign, and partly because it generates some really cool ideas for new spells.)




  I loved the Vancian system, but hey ... each to their own (and as a DM, I would have enabled wizards to have a lot more spells than they had, and Rings of Wizardry were always useful, no?)
  4E?  It was designed not to be backward compatible.  That was quite deliberate.  I suppose you can make it so anyways, but they didn't make it easy.  (At least, my take.  Of all the D&D editions I know of, 4E is the hardest to hybridize.  At least, just my experience.)



> I've been playing this game since before Basic D&D. I actually became a gamer right at the point where the Basic and Expert boxed sets were available at the hobby shop, the 1E PHB was in its 2nd or 3rd printing, and you could still mail order the Eldritch Wizardry supplement (which I am deeply privileged to have, along with a few other relics and artifacts).




  Myself also.  I went over to Dragonsfoot, and felt quite at home.  (Although whether they would welcome me, I do not know.)  I also sorta feel ... old.  (sighs)  Time robs us all.



> I am concerned about the changes brought in with 4E. I expect that, barring unexpected disasters of the TPK kind, the current campaign will take PCs to 30-40th level, have them facing Elder Gods, Ancient Evils, and Horrors from Beyond before the campaign ends. 4E supports an equivalent.
> 4E -- It, especially the mechanics and lack of conversion, just doesn't support my current game setting. The lack of GSL hurts, too. I've pulled a lot of ideas from other posters on EnWorld, and from purchases from 3rd party publishers (I'm looking at you, Necromancer, FatDragon, Paizo, Upper Krust, and others). 4E is a significant change from all previous editions. Perhaps too much change. That seriously bothers me. There is no convenient way to get from point C (3.5E) to point M (4E).




  (helpless look)  What can I say?  

  I would say ... try to create an enjoyable game, using whatever mechanics (or edition) that works for you and your players.  If it is fun, that's the point.  If it is not fun, what is the point?
  Enjoy the game.  Use any edition you want.  Heck, it is *your* game, and *your* time spent, your money, your house, your work, your ... everything.  And most of all, these are your friends.  Cherish it all!
  Simplistic?  Maybe.  But it works.  It worked for me and my friends, Way Back When.  It still works today.  So, just ... to be simplistic ... just have fun!
  What more could I say?



> The extremity of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0 bothers me even more. I don't want to see WotC fail in any manner whatsoever. There are too many talented and skilled people involved, including 3PP, who are generating intriguing ideas - treasure worth its weight in platinum. But for now, 4E is not a game system I DM a campaign for. The rules mechanics make DMing a lot easier (thank you, WotC - 3.0 and 3.5 have been a nightmare of mechanics, especially after level 13-15), but the other changes - races, classes, cosmology, magic system, go too far. My current campaigns aren't done. I'm left high and dry by 4E, as a DM with a living, breathing, flourishing campaign setting. It is not a pleasant sensation. It also doesn't mean that I won't try 4E to see what it has to offer. It just changed too much, so what I was currently running couldn't change with it. The last ten plus years of campaign setting, supported by convertable mechanics, are no longer convertable in the details. And the devil, along with versimilitude and continuity, is in the details.




  (helpless look)

  I do not know why 2E was abandoned.  But I thought 3.0 was pretty neat.
  I thought 3.0 was very time consuming, and a compromise was needed to lessen the time requirements.  The compromise?  Play (and even run) the game as if we were Beginners.  In short, have a lot of Confused and Puzzled Fun, while trying to understand what we already had *and* while buying (or others buying and bringing in) dozens or even hundreds of nifty supplements.
  Remember the wonder of OD&D, when you were a player, didn't understand the rules, but you just Went Along With The Flow, and learned as you went?  Sorta my idea of how to handle 3.0.  (It worked, too, for me and my friends.)

  3.5?
  Remember that Hasbro had bought WOTC by then, and they were calling the shots.
  3.5 had some good things in it (I thought Gestalt was really neat, and the Prismatic Mage, and a whole bunch of other stuff.)  Didn't like some things (the change in the Druid.)
  What to do?
  Houserule.
  And play the game different ways, to satisfy different players.

  4th Edition?
  4th Edition has been a shock to me, as it has been to you, and most others.  But then, it would be, no?  It is very different from 3.5.
  I'm still trying to adapt to it.  (I voted Partial Changeover for myself in my own poll, here.)  Trying to see if I can get some enjoyment out of it.  That's what it's all about.
  I wouldn't want to be in your situation, though, I will admit.  Converting an entire campaign, an entire world, and all the characters, from 3.5 to 4th?  Ack.  A lot of work, there.  I guess it's up to you, to decide if it's worth it.  I can't make that call.  (I would never presume to try, either.)



> I no longer have the time in my blue/white collar life to devote to re-writing a campaign setting to a new paradigm. Maybe this change is necessary so that the hobby can gain new blood and continue to grow and evolve. Certainly, the work by the current designers is credible and admirable. Maybe this is a difficult or damaging, hopefully not fatal, step in the evolution of the hobby.




  You are not alone.  I think it is a truism when I say people have little time for gaming, especially adults in the working world.  A truism.  And what is more precious than time, in any case?
  Again, it's your call.  Do what you want.  This is your game, your group, your hard work, and - especially - your shared activity with friends.  Why do it any other way, than Your Way?



> But for me, unless something unexpected happens, I won't be recruiting new players to 4E for the foreseeable future. That's an average of 1-2 new customers per year, since I've "retired" from open games at the local university and game store. But it's been *my* campaign, *my* playstyle, that's been recruiting new gamers - gamers who haven't played D&D (in any incarnation) before.




  You are a popular DM?  You have brought a lot of fun to people?  (solemn look)  My salutations.  Cheers to you, merelycompetent.



> The newest, latest, edition only offers me ideas. The mechanics kill my campaign. I don't want to pay $25 per splatbook/6 months DDI subscription to get the mechanics for core classes like druids and barbarians so my campaign can convert to 4E.




  Again, from my POV, it's your party.  And I say, if it's your party, then it's *your* party (why can't anyone remember this with the Nutcracker Ballet, which is invariably boring because they forget that it's Clara's party, not the Party of a bunch of other people?)
  If it's *your* party, then I urge you to do it *your way.*  That's the right way, your way, as long as you are having fun.
  If 4E helps, more power to it!  If 4E doesn't help, don't use it.  But don't let others tell you what should or shouldn't be used, or what is right or wrong!  This is *your* game!



> I don't know what impact my particular "class" of customer will have on 4E. WotC strikes me as being populated with very smart people. People who may very well look on me as a "fringe customer".




  I wouldn't call someone who is a well known DM who has brought fun to a lot of people, who has run a major campaign (and done the colossal amount of required work to create that campaign), who is extremely familiar with the various editions of D&D, and who talks like you do, a 'fringe customer.'
  I don't think WOTC thinks of you that way, either.
  If Hasbro (the owners of WOTC) think of you this way, it is their loss, not yours.



> There is nothing wrong with that. I still get to run my campaign the way I - and the players - enjoy, and WotC still gets to publish an immensely popular game. That is a win-win situation - the best kind. Five game sessions from now, I may have TPK, or the players may decide they want to scrap their current game for a brand new 4E one. I'm OK with that so long as I still get to have fun.




  I could not image anyone arguing with this!  It's just ... well, if I had to coin a phrase, call it D&D Common Sense?
  Win/Win, indeed.



> I would hate to see a campaign setting with years of background get relegated to a pool of ideas. That happens, and it's OK. Evolve or die.




  I myself am too Old World to agree with that.  I cherish the past (I'm even a Collector of TSR material.)
  So, I say, if one wants an older version of a setting, that's a reasonable idea.  Not everything must change.
  If that sounds ridiculous, consider how much *we* are changing, as we grow older.  Can we stop that?  No.  We can't.  All we can do is try to preserve what is good, and change what isn't, no?  Make things better than should be better, but keep what we believe is good.  What is wrong with that?



> Considering the players, and the campaign, I don't expect that to happen. But I am worried, at this time, by the fact that all the long-time DM's I personally know (please note that I'm excluding players - the view is even more dismal there), are *not* using, or buying, 4E products. I can account for a small percentage of the market, in a very remote market region. But the company that *is* my hobby no longer suports the game I play. This is cause for concern.




  Well, ok, and here is my poll, and it's showing only 31% Changeover, so it and you would be in agreement.
  But I cannot account for the whether 4E is healthy or not.  That is up for others to debate, not me.  I merely observe here.

  That *last* statement is another matter.
  That ... the attitude of Hasbro ... I could be wrong here ... seems to have caused a very great tragedy, a part of which you are referring to, but the scope of which is greater than even that (which is saying something, considering the enormity of what you said.)
  We saw, what became of Dragon.  Dungeon.  A number of popular campaign settings.  And so on.  We saw ... well, we saw an attitude which led to the Edition Wars Flamewar, which got so bad Morrus had to call a halt to it for 2 months.  We've seen the widespread resignation and despair since then, which replaced the Edition Wars.
  You know what?  I do not approve of how Hasbro has handled this, and would say so.  I do not blame WOTC, which has to do as they are told.  I do not blame other posters or players.  Heck, I do not even blame most of the people at Hasbro.  Merely the CEOs, whose primary interest was and is - if what I have read is to be believed - on Pokemon, not D&D (not even the card game, Magic the Gathering.)
  I most certainly do not point the finger at anyone on ENWorld, for the Battle of Unnumbered Tears level catastrophe I've witnessed happen over the last 4 years.  Not their fault, not your fault, not WOTC's fault, not the fault of really anyone I could point a finger at.  (It's almost scary, the way I cannot point a finger at anyone ... the nebulous workings of a large company and the thinking of it's various top officers, is byzantine and sometimes at cross purposes, the world is competitive and encroaches on the hobby, and the situation becomes so confused that nobody can figure out the actual reality.)



> I hope that I am an isolated statistical point. But I worry that this poll indicates that I am not.




  I just hope they do not withdraw the copyrights to D&D, shut down the game, and thus put an end to Dungeons and Dragons, as they did Dragon Magazine.
  If they do that, we still have Pathfinder, and C&C, and ... the Successor Games, as it were.
  But ... I would like to see the original stick around (and our flagship magazine, Dragon, come back.)  Just me ...

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## merelycompetent

Samurai said:


> Well said, Merelycompetent.
> 
> I just want to point you and everyone else to a new thread and poll I forked off this thread... What would it take to win you (and other old-timers) over to 4E, if anything?
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-old-guard-forked-thread-changeover-poll.html




Thank you for the compliment.

Point me towards, show, or give me a way of converting the 3.5 characters, NPCs, classes, and cosmology to 4E, such that I don't have to re-write 1/3 to 1/2 my current homebrew campaign. I'd even leap on a DDI subscription that had such a gem in it, provided that it gave *really helpful, less work for the DM* advice.

For example: I have NPCs who have received magic items from PCs, who undertook quests to retrieve said items for said NPCs. Such magic items have powers usable 1/day (think Teleport, or Heal - both extremely useful power from 1E - 3.5E). With 4E, the NPC can only use one magic item power with a 1/day power, even if he, she, or it, has 5 such items. According to the 4E rules (as I understand them), my 7th level NPC could only use one such power per day, in spite of having 5 magical devices each with a 1/day power. That is a good way of balancing magical items with the rest of the 4E mechanics. But a player whose character went on a quest to retrieve one of these items for that NPC is rightly going to question why should he have bothered. Then why would the NPC go to the trouble of gathering these (mostly) useless items for himself? Versimilitude, setting, and NPC/campaign motivation killed by a game mechanic. This is a fundamental balance issue for 4E - 1/day magical items can only be used a limited number of times, no matter how many 1/day items the character possesses.

Given a conversion method, that preserves enough *semblance* of the expected fundamental sacred cows, that I (as DM) don't have to spend a month typing in mechanics changes (that *require* setting changes) to my campaign, and I would gladly start persuading my 3.5E players to convert wholesale to 4E.

I expect that this is impossible: The fundamental sacred cows are likely to be different for every homebrew campaign, and on even the third read-through of the Core Rules, the mechanics look like they specifically exclude fundamentals of previous editions. Yet it is the long-running (3+ years) homebrew campaigns that are the primary building blocks of the solid, reliable gamers who are also repeat customers for WotC. For me, Druids as a class, and Elves being mainly arcane-type spellcasters are some of those fundamental issues. For another DM/player on EnWorld, it is likely something different. I may very well be wrong about this. Ryan Dancey (sp? - sorry, it's 5am where I'm at) certainly changed the gaming world with the OGL and related matters.

Then there is the matter of missing "core" classes - such as Druids. For me, any class that can alter the amount of food crops producable in a growing season would have considerable political, magical, and military influence. Where did they go? Online subscription only? My veins are starting to cramp up after the $80+ for the Core Rules books.

A splatbook (more money) or a web entry (subscription = more money) and neither were available to me as of December 1, 2008... making it difficult (OK, impossible) for me to start working on a conversion. I'd rather play or DM a game session than spend 4-6 hours working on converting from 3.5E to 4E. Life's too short to spend it converting rules mechanics.

And don't get me started on the whole Eladrin/Elves issues. Talk about screwing up campaign world politics: Half to 3/4 of my former Elves would be residents of another plane since they prefer being spellcasters to rangers! That alone irks me considerably, since I'd have to play mix-'n'-match with racial abilities to get back to the various subraces of Elves that have been preserved (more or less) intact from 1E Unearthed Arcana! The game mechanics *must* make the DM's (or GM's, or referee's) work *easier*. If it makes it harder, then something is seriously wrong.

My limited, 8-5 working day, free time would be better spent houseruling 3.5E than trying to retcon 4E core mechanics. But I might be wrong. I hope that someone else has the imagination or vision beyond mine to see a way out!

I must get some sleep, now. I hope that the above is useful to you and others.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

merelycompetent said:


> Now I am curious, and actively watching a thread in a way I haven't for years.
> 
> Have you spotted something that the rest of us have missed, or developed a theory?




  Insight?  Nothing special.

  I honestly believe our game suffers undeserved blame.  It has been demonized for a situation it did not create.
  What is the situation?  How does the situation devolve into trouble and blame?
  The mechanics of this are simple and easy to follow, and they involve the darker aspects of ourselves:

  - I like this game!
  - Well, I like it too!
  - Let's play it!
  - Yes, let's play it!

  (A lot of time passes, a lot of fun is had)

  (The players, and DM, due to problems (sighs ... inevitable problems ...) totally unrelated to the game, slowly become antagonistic towards each other.  This antagonism spills into the game, creating a downward spiral.)

  - I like this rule.
  - Well, I do not like this rule.

  - I really dislike this rule.

  - I think it is stupid to use this rule.

  - I think it is idiotic to use this rule.

  - I think it is ok to use this rule.
  - * I think there is something wrong with anyone who uses this rule. *

  - I think there is something wrong with you.
  - I share the reverse sentiment.

  - I do not like you.
  - I do not like you, either.

  - I really do not like you.
  - Likewise.

  - I think we shall part ways now.
  - I concur.  Today, we part ways ... forever.

  This Death Spiral is made all the more easy by the fact D&D must have open ended rules, but it is started by friction from non-gaming sources ... but it is the *D&D game* which gets blamed, not the other source.  Which is profoundly unfair to the game.
  D&D did not invent the Real World and it's problems.  D&D did not invent people and their problems.  D&D did not invent all the difficulties faced by people.  Or it's various competitors (such as the internet and everything on it.)  Or the social changes.  Or, a lot of other stuff I can't go into on ENWorld.
  But D&D gets blamed for it.  And those who design and market it.  And vendors.  And a lot of other people who are not at fault, but who are caught up in the melee.

  Even in chess, with it's hard and set rules, they have their problems getting along.  And heck, they don't even TALK during the game (it isn't allowed!)  It isn't a Social Interaction game at all, not at least during the game itself.
  D&D is, and if someone is having trouble from non-gaming sources (meaning ... *ALL* of us, altogether, all the time, but sometimes we can supress those problems long enough to have fun ... or, at least, get it our best shot! ...) then the problem comes crashing into the game.
  If someone else is having a problem, this can be like shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin, and the results are as bad.

  In the end, what is to blame?  Well, the blame goes to a lot of things, and the personal fallacies of human beings (who amongst us is perfect?  Who never makes mistakes??)
  But it is not D&D which is to blame.  D&D, was the instrument through which people tried to have fun, the instrument to enable some fun.

  Yet time and again, what gets most or all of the blame?  The D&D game.

  A different edition, whether that edition is a good one or a bad one, will not fix this problem.  Nor will people start being perfect and stop having problems.
  All we can do is wage a constant battle for the purpose of ... having fun.


----------



## CapnZapp

Once I tried 4E, I realized that whatever its warts, I would never go back to 3E.

The complexity and number-crunching of 3E simply sucked out all the fun out of high-level play.


----------



## Darrin Drader

D&D has already failed once, and because of that failure, it was bought out and went on to one of its most successful eras since the beginning of the game. It is my belief that if it fails again, the market will move on and choose one or more successors. Pathfinder is likely to be one, C&C could potentially be another, and then we might see a resurgence in non-d20 based systems like Savage Worlds and d6 (which is poised to make a comeback right about now).

I'm not saying that I want 4E to fail, but I am saying that I don't believe that if that happens, it would be as bleak as many people predict it would be. People would simply move on and either stick with what they already have, or find another system to support. I predict that WotC would rather shelve the D&D brand than lose its licensing potential, so we would likely see it continue to exist in the form of alternate media, like video games, comic books, and maybe the occasional weak attempt at a board game or reissue RPG. But despite the fate of the D&D brand, the game would continue to live on thanks to the OGL.


----------



## Jack99

merelycompetent said:


> For example: I have NPCs who have received magic items from PCs, who undertook quests to retrieve said items for said NPCs. Such magic items have powers usable 1/day (think Teleport, or Heal - both extremely useful power from 1E - 3.5E). With 4E, the NPC can only use one magic item power with a 1/day power, even if he, she, or it, has 5 such items. According to the 4E rules (as I understand them), my 7th level NPC could only use one such power per day, in spite of having 5 magical devices each with a 1/day power. That is a good way of balancing magical items with the rest of the 4E mechanics. But a player whose character went on a quest to retrieve one of these items for that NPC is rightly going to question why should he have bothered. Then why would the NPC go to the trouble of gathering these (mostly) useless items for himself? Versimilitude, setting, and NPC/campaign motivation killed by a game mechanic. This is a fundamental balance issue for 4E - 1/day magical items can only be used a limited number of times, no matter how many 1/day items the character possesses.




Technically, this is not entirely correct, for what it is worth. As a basis, you may use a dailies once per day. However, with each milestone acquired (by the book a milestone is two encounters without an extended rest - an encounter could be a skill challenge as well) you gain the use of another daily item. So if your NPC goes through 4 encounters in a day, he would be able to use 3 different dailies. I know that quite a few people have experimented with players being able to use 1 daily per encounter, without reporting breaking the game. 

What that is said, these rules apply to players. The general attitude in 4e is that NPC's should be able to do what the DM wants them to do, instead of being modelled as pseudo-PC's.

Cheers


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> D&D has already failed once, and because of that failure, it was bought out and went on to one of its most successful eras since the beginning of the game. It is my belief that if it fails again, the market will move on and choose one or more successors.




I'm assuming by "failed once" you are referring to 2E?  I'm not sure that era was a failure by any stretch. And I'm by no means a 2E fan.

At any rate, if 4E "fails" there is no competition for it save a previous edition of D&D.  While I'll grant EN World polls are statistically meaningless, there is one floating around out here showing what people will be/are playing.  The results: If it ain't 4E, it's 3E.  The next closest option is barely 7% (when last I checked) and that was a tie between C&C and PF.

Make no mistake about it: 4E's _only_ competition is 3E.

WotC made such a great version of D&D that they're now fighting an uphill battle to get people to move forward - at least those people who were/are invested in the previous version.

WP


----------



## megamania

wow.

Based on these numbers 4e isn't doing very well.


----------



## megamania

Wisdom Penalty said:


> WotC made such a great version of D&D that they're now fighting an uphill battle to get people to move forward - at least those people who were/are invested in the previous version.
> 
> WP





Absolutely true.


----------



## Jasperak

Wisdom Penalty said:


> At any rate, if 4E "fails" there is no competition for it save a previous edition of D&D.  While I'll grant EN World polls are statistically meaningless, there is one floating around out here showing what people will be/are playing.  The results: If it ain't 4E, it's 3E.  The next closest option is barely 7% (when last I checked) and that was a tie between C&C and PF.
> 
> Make no mistake about it: *4E's only competition is 3E*.
> 
> WotC made such a great version of D&D that they're now fighting an uphill battle to get people to move forward - at least those people who were/are invested in the previous version.
> 
> WP




Didn't someone like Dancy say as much would happen. 

D&D is the WOW of the paper RPG industry. The only thing that will kill WOW any time soon would be something like making WOW2 that was not compatable with the original WOW. Think if WOW came out and said thanks for playing your 80th-level toons, we are now coming out with this new and improved game (because the original had so many problems) and everybody gets to start over.


----------



## Korgoth

Ydars said:


> I think with hindsight, this ignoring the old guard will rank as one of the stupidest mistakes WoTC have ever made with respect to D&D; especially when Ryan Dancey once pointed out that the only effective competitor that D&D would ever have to reckon with was a previous edition of the game.




I do wonder to what extent they deliberately decided to change the essence of D&D with 4E (consciously making a new game that goes in a different direction), and to what extent they simply thought that they understood what D&D was about but in fact did not. I think perhaps it was a bit of both. I know I was bothered by the "too cool for school" attitude that some of the 4E team gave off. Then there was the deliberate stuff like the famed "shaking your fists at the clouds" approach that made it appear as if some members of the team considered themselves as lofty and superior beings.

I spent a fair amount of time learning about 4E and reading the introductory materials. Every design decision I've seen (and they just keep on coming) convinces me that to buy a 4E product is essentially to pay someone who knows less about D&D than I do to tell me how to play it. Combined with the supercilious tone of some of the marketing pronouncements it means that not only am I not interested in the game (purely on its own merits), I also don't really care what happens to it. Which is doubly too bad, because I wanted to like it and and was hopeful at the prospect of having a strong team producing product that it would be fun to consume.

Speaking for myself, I can easily play D&D for the rest of my life without spending another dime on it (except for graph paper and mechanical pencils, I guess). I tried 3.0 and 3.5 for several years and didn't like them. I didn't even get as far as trying 4.0. I didn't really _want_ to be alienated but that's how it turned out. If the new one succeeds, fine. If it tanks and gets canceled, fine. If D&D goes out of print, also fine. The strength of this hobby has always been the hobbyists themselves and that's how it will always be.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Wisdom Penalty said:


> I'm assuming by "failed once" you are referring to 2E?  I'm not sure that era was a failure by any stretch. And I'm by no means a 2E fan.




D&D failed because the company built around it went bankrupt and ceased publication, prompting the WotC buyout. That's the definition of failure. 



> At any rate, if 4E "fails" there is no competition for it save a previous edition of D&D.  While I'll grant EN World polls are statistically meaningless, there is one floating around out here showing what people will be/are playing.  The results: If it ain't 4E, it's 3E.  The next closest option is barely 7% (when last I checked) and that was a tie between C&C and PF.
> 
> Make no mistake about it: 4E's _only_ competition is 3E.




That's true today, but people will want to start buying again. It won't take long for that to happen, and when it does happen, the majority will want something that is mostly like the D&D they already know. That leaves OGL products and Pathfinder. The market will not simply evaporate because the industry leader goes away.



> WotC made such a great version of D&D that they're now fighting an uphill battle to get people to move forward - at least those people who were/are invested in the previous version.




This would be true if 4E was actually a move forward. The general consensus is that 4E is a fairly large step in the opposite direction.


----------



## RefinedBean

Darrin Drader said:


> This would be true if 4E was actually a move forward. The general consensus is that 4E is a fairly large step in the opposite direction.




I don't mean to sound snarky, but do you have evidence for this?  I haven't seen ANY sort of consensus formed on 4E, other than it being "different."


----------



## Darrin Drader

RefinedBean said:


> I don't mean to sound snarky, but do you have evidence for this?  I haven't seen ANY sort of consensus formed on 4E, other than it being "different."




The poll results speak for themselves.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

RefinedBean said:


> I don't mean to sound snarky, but do you have evidence for this?  I haven't seen ANY sort of consensus formed on 4E, other than it being "different."




The consensus is built on countless computer simulations I have run proving the point.

No, you can't look at the program.

No, you can't look at the data.

Trust me. There's a consensus. 

_It's science._


----------



## merelycompetent

Jack99 said:


> Technically, this is not entirely correct, for what it is worth. As a basis, you may use a dailies once per day. However, with each milestone acquired (by the book a milestone is two encounters without an extended rest - an encounter could be a skill challenge as well) you gain the use of another daily item. So if your NPC goes through 4 encounters in a day, he would be able to use 3 different dailies. I know that quite a few people have experimented with players being able to use 1 daily per encounter, without reporting breaking the game.
> 
> What that is said, these rules apply to players. The general attitude in 4e is that NPC's should be able to do what the DM wants them to do, instead of being modelled as pseudo-PC's.




Thank you for the response . I don't want to diverge too far from the poll.

You are right, IMO, that the changes you mention would work mechanically for me. But that limitation on item daily powers is fundamental to 4E mechanics. This illustrates one of the mechanics/design problems I have with 4E. My NPCs (and PCs) have to achieve milestones to make use of the items they've already quested for. For example: NPC - "Hmm, I'm surrounded and nearly dead from injuries that will kill me in the next minute from bleeding. I'll use my dagger to teleport to safety, and then my longsword to heal me... what?!? I have to go achieve a milestone/get to another encounter to use my longsword's powers? I can't show up at the King's Council bleeding on His Majesty's carpet!" Thus does the legend of Irabir the Sly come to an end because of a rules mechanic. This wouldn't be a problem if Irabir the Sly didn't have the pre-existing history of hiring adventurers to get these items for him so he could use this tactic.

I also object to NPCs being able to do things that the PCs also can't do. I avoid situations where the way magic (or the world) works changes for the sake of plot or continuity. I want the players to trust that there is an in-game reason how Irabir the Sly was able to get healed back to near full health so quickly after he escaped the assassins, so they can use it themselves.

The mechanics of 4E force too many situations where I, and the players I game with, respond with a "What the heck?" in the middle of playing. These issues have been discussed in other threads far better than I can here in this one isolated example. With other edition changes, I've been able to kick and beat the rules + campaign into a cohesive whole. I do not see a way to do that with 4E and my current game.

Again, for my current campaign world, 4E doesn't work *for* me at a fundamental mechanics level. I'm not willing, at this time, to scrap a well-developed campaign setting to switch editions for the simple reason that I don't have *time* to create a new campaign and still play. Especially when the current campaign promises a couple more years of fun. Even more so when, through the four previous editions, I *was* able to convert to the new edition without having to rewrite more than a few pages of notes. Now there is a wall that breaks my campaign's continuity. As a DM with an existing campaign, I am now excluded from the new rules unless I start a new campaign specifically for 4E.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> D&D failed because the company built around it went bankrupt and ceased publication, prompting the WotC buyout. That's the definition of failure.




Who's definition? Yours? Perhaps. I don't necessarily equate the failure of my hobby to the company (or companies) that provide materials for me to play, _provided_ I have more than enough materials/imagination to continue play within my group. Different strokes.



> That's true today, but people will want to start buying again. It won't take long for that to happen, and when it does happen, the majority will want something that is mostly like the D&D they already know.




Or they do one better: Buy stuff that already _is_ "the D&D they already know." That goes back to my belief - again, just my opinion - that 3e is the main competitor of 4e.



> The market will not simply evaporate because the industry leader goes away.




If 'market' is synonymous with 'hobby', you seem to agree with my first statement regarding the "failure" of D&D during the 2e era.



> This would be true if 4E was actually a move forward. The general consensus is that 4E is a fairly large step in the opposite direction.




I disagree with both your opinion and your take on the "general consensus" of opinion with the hobby. From here, we could both spiral downward into an emotional and kneejerk internet argument with many "Just LeAve BrittneY aLONe!!" statements, or we can agree to disagree. I prefer the latter. The other stuff has gone from amusing, to annoying, to...boring.

WP


----------



## El Mahdi

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Insight? Nothing special.
> 
> I honestly believe our game suffers undeserved blame. It has been demonized for a situation it did not create.
> What is the situation? How does the situation devolve into trouble and blame?
> The mechanics of this are simple and easy to follow, and they involve the darker aspects of ourselves:
> 
> 
> . . . . . .
> 
> 
> D&D did not invent the Real World and it's problems. D&D did not invent people and their problems. D&D did not invent all the difficulties faced by people. Or it's various competitors (such as the internet and everything on it.) Or the social changes. Or, a lot of other stuff I can't go into on ENWorld.
> But D&D gets blamed for it. And those who design and market it. And vendors. And a lot of other people who are not at fault, but who are caught up in the melee.
> 
> Even in chess, with it's hard and set rules, they have their problems getting along. And heck, they don't even TALK during the game (it isn't allowed!) It isn't a Social Interaction game at all, not at least during the game itself.
> D&D is, and if someone is having trouble from non-gaming sources (meaning ... *ALL* of us, altogether, all the time, but sometimes we can supress those problems long enough to have fun ... or, at least, get it our best shot! ...) then the problem comes crashing into the game.
> If someone else is having a problem, this can be like shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin, and the results are as bad.
> 
> In the end, what is to blame? Well, the blame goes to a lot of things, and the personal fallacies of human beings (who amongst us is perfect? Who never makes mistakes??)
> But it is not D&D which is to blame. D&D, was the instrument through which people tried to have fun, the instrument to enable some fun.
> 
> Yet time and again, what gets most or all of the blame? The D&D game.
> 
> A different edition, whether that edition is a good one or a bad one, will not fix this problem. Nor will people start being perfect and stop having problems.
> All we can do is wage a constant battle for the purpose of ... having fun.




Man, you really get philosophical late at night don't you (or early in the morning as it is).

Nice thread, and very nice posts.  I've really been enjoying this one and all of the companion threads.  It's been fun revisiting some of these polls and questions, with some very interesting results.  So far, they all seem to be staying relatively edition war free too.  I hope they stay that way.


----------



## Jack99

Wulf Ratbane said:


> The consensus is built on countless computer simulations I have run proving the point.
> 
> No, you can't look at the program.
> 
> No, you can't look at the data.
> 
> Trust me. There's a consensus.
> 
> _It's science._



That's pretty funny! 



merelycompetent said:


> Thank you for the response . I don't want to diverge too far from the poll.
> *Snip*




And I totally respect that. I mean, I wouldn't play a game that gave me such headaches either. 

Cheers


----------



## Darrin Drader

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Who's definition? Yours? Perhaps. I don't necessarily equate the failure of my hobby to the company (or companies) that provide materials for me to play, _provided_ I have more than enough materials/imagination to continue play within my group. Different strokes.
> 
> If 'market' is synonymous with 'hobby', you seem to agree with my first statement regarding the "failure" of D&D during the 2e era.




Yes, we're talking about two different things: the game itself and the survival of the brand. As a game system, I don't consider 2E a failure. I played the heck out of that system back in the day, and while its structure remained very much like 1E, it was a solid foundation upon which over a decade of gaming was built. Obviously the business end collapsed during the 2E era, which is what I'm referring to. 



> Or they do one better: Buy stuff that already _is_ "the D&D they already know." That goes back to my belief - again, just my opinion - that 3e is the main competitor of 4e.



Again, I agree with your premise that 3E is 4E's main competitor, but there are people who either have all of the official 3E stuff they want, or are still looking for the latest and greatest. It's those people, the ones spending money month after month on the latest books, that won't be satisfied to just buy what already exists and let it die. That's where I believe we would see some of the third tier companies step up and become second or even first tier companies as they move to fill the void.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> *snip*




I agree.

WP


----------



## Treebore

Darrin Drader said:


> D&D has already failed once, and because of that failure, it was bought out and went on to one of its most successful eras since the beginning of the game. It is my belief that if it fails again, the market will move on and choose one or more successors. Pathfinder is likely to be one, C&C could potentially be another, and then we might see a resurgence in non-d20 based systems like Savage Worlds and d6 (which is poised to make a comeback right about now).
> 
> I'm not saying that I want 4E to fail, but I am saying that I don't believe that if that happens, it would be as bleak as many people predict it would be. People would simply move on and either stick with what they already have, or find another system to support. I predict that WotC would rather shelve the D&D brand than lose its licensing potential, so we would likely see it continue to exist in the form of alternate media, like video games, comic books, and maybe the occasional weak attempt at a board game or reissue RPG. But despite the fate of the D&D brand, the game would continue to live on thanks to the OGL.




I hope your right, but the perception was when TSR went bankrupt and quit producing for all those months RPG's also suffered a major die off. So if that was true then it would likely be true now, plus it would take a while, probably 2 or more years, for Paizo or any other company to start picking up those pieces to be the new leader.

So even if it wasn't a permanent death blow it will likely still be a hard hit that the hobby would take a long time to bounce back from.

So despite my dislike of 4E I still would prefer WOTC stay in business with D&D. Plus they may actually make 5E a D&D I can like. I doubt it because C&C is just all kinds of awesome for me and the way I like to game, but I am hopeful.


----------



## El Mahdi

Treebore said:


> I hope your right, but the perception was when TSR went bankrupt and quit producing for all those months RPG's also suffered a major die off. So if that was true then it would likely be true now, plus it would take a while, probably 2 or more years, for Paizo or any other company to start picking up those pieces to be the new leader.
> 
> So even if it wasn't a permanent death blow it will likely still be a hard hit that the hobby would take a long time to bounce back from.
> 
> So despite my dislike of 4E I still would prefer WOTC stay in business with D&D. Plus they may actually make 5E a D&D I can like. I doubt it because C&C is just all kinds of awesome for me and the way I like to game, but I am hopeful.




I agree with this 100%.  I sincerely do not want to see WoTC fail, with the probable subsequent (but hopefully temporary) decline of the industry as a whole.

Of course though, even though I haven't switched, I seem to be doing my fair share to keep WoTC in business.  I just can't help it.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Treebore said:


> I hope your right, but the perception was when TSR went bankrupt and quit producing for all those months RPG's also suffered a major die off. So if that was true then it would likely be true now, plus it would take a while, probably 2 or more years, for Paizo or any other company to start picking up those pieces to be the new leader.




There is a difference between then and now, though. When TSR died off, there was no OGL and other companies were not permitted to make D&D compatible materials. Also, the whole distribution system that existed back then has been turned on its ear because of the internet. Back then hobby shops were the primary means of getting games from the manufacturers to the customers. Now there's print on demand, PDF, and Amazon and other online stores.



> So even if it wasn't a permanent death blow it will likely still be a hard hit that the hobby would take a long time to bounce back from.



I'm not going to disagree with you on that point. I predict that gaming would shift to a mostly online model for a while, and we would probably see an eventual return over the course of about five years.



> So despite my dislike of 4E I still would prefer WOTC stay in business with D&D. Plus they may actually make 5E a D&D I can like. I doubt it because C&C is just all kinds of awesome for me and the way I like to game, but I am hopeful.



My ideal scenario for D&D would be for the official brand to fall under Monte Cook's leadership. With Malhavoc, he proved that he can run a successful RPG company and produce some highly innovative gaming products. In this era, he has become the de facto "King of RPGs," so I'd be completely comfortable with him in charge.

Of course that's never going to happen, so like you, I'm willing to wait out 4E in hopes that WotC makes a 5E that I like better. In the mean time, I'm throwing my support behind the companies like Paizo and Green Ronin, which I would like to see rise to prominence in the event of a potential D&D brand failure.


----------



## Greg K

Darrin Drader said:


> My ideal scenario for D&D would be for the official brand to fall under Monte Cook's leadership. With Malhavoc, he proved that he can run a successful RPG company and produce some highly innovative gaming products. In this era, he has become the de facto "King of RPGs," so I'd be completely comfortable with him in charge.




My ideal scenario would be for the official brand to fall under Green Ronin.  I love the Advanced Bestiary, Master Class series (espeically, the books by Steve Kenson), the Book of the Righteous, the Book of Fiends, and Freeport.  Whereas with Malhavoc, the only material I really like is the Book of Iron Might, Book of Roguish Luck, and Beyond Countless Doorways (to be fair, I haven't seen Ptolus).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I say, whatever happens, don't blame it on the game.  Or even on WOTC.  Or, on anyone from Hasbro that comes to ENWorld.  

  Blame it on much bigger things.  The rise of computer games.  The rise of the internet (if it is so affecting Main Street, obviously it will affect hobby stores, and gaming, and how we game.)  The rise of all those card games.

  D&D has a tough road to hoe.

  But our hobby will be ok.  People want to enjoy fantasy roleplaying ... fantasy roleplaying, is something people enjoy and will spend huge amounts of that *MOST* precious of all commodities, time, upon.  What more proof is needed, that this is a hobby that will endure, that people are willing to give so much of their time and themselves, to it?

  It may or may not stay a Face to Face hobby as *I* remember it, where we got together around a table (ala, those infamous Knights of the Dinner Table!) and ate food and drank pepsi (or coca-cola) and gamed.
  Heck, I happen to believe we'll be doing this in Virtual Reality, in about 10 years (because in about 10 years, computers and the internet system will have advanced that far.)

  Even those stubborn chess people, sitting in solemn silence broken only by the clamp of hand on time pieces, probably will alter their way of doing things (a virtual chess tournament! ...)

  The whole world is changing around us.
  But ...
  Our hobby, our roleplaying, is going to stick around.  And, I'll swear by it.  D&D is going to stick around.

  We'll be up to 20th edition (you thought Edition Wars were bad now, wait until 20 editions exist!) but hey ... again ... there will be more material available.
  Call me an optimist (I am rather famous for my pessimism, but I wish to be optimistic here.)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Almost 750 votes.  

  (I wish I could have made this poll about naughty stuff.  Everyone loves the Naughty Stuff.  Then, I'd have 10,000 votes!  But alas, tis not allowed ...)

  Anyways ... the results are holding, as the vote count climbs.

  Changeover (Options 1 and 2) ... 32%
  No Changeover (Options 6 and 7) ... 57%
  Partial Changeover (Options 3, 4, and 5) ... 11%

  Those selecting Option 6 (tried 4E, went back to earlier editions) ... 30%

  As usual, I round up if the number is 0.50 or greater, round down if it is 0.49 or less.  (Exception:  for Partial Changeover, you can consider I am always rounding down.  I always have ... so Partial Changeover occasionally loses 1% (but the poll results never go to 101%, either))


----------



## Alzrius

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Changeover (Options 1 and 2) ... 32%
> No Changeover (Options 6 and 7) ... 57%
> Partial Changeover (Options 3, 4, and 5) ... 11%




I don't like to nitpick...no, that's a lie, I do...but it's more like 32%/58%/10% at this point.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Darrin Drader said:


> My ideal scenario for D&D would be for the official brand to fall under Monte Cook's leadership. With Malhavoc, he proved that he can run a successful RPG company and produce some highly innovative gaming products. In this era, he has become the de facto "King of RPGs," so I'd be completely comfortable with him in charge.
> 
> Of course that's never going to happen, so like you, I'm willing to wait out 4E in hopes that WotC makes a 5E that I like better. In the mean time, I'm throwing my support behind the companies like Paizo and Green Ronin, which I would like to see rise to prominence in the event of a potential D&D brand failure.




While I hesitate to ascribe too much power to one person, I do think that Monte has invaluable insight on D&D after designing 3.0 and running a very successful OGL/d20 company after that. I think a very small group that included him, Erik Mona, and perhaps one or two others would be absolutely brilliant for handling the D&D brand.


----------



## Garnfellow

Wulf Ratbane said:


> _It's science._



"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Wulf Ratbane again."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Garnfellow said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Wulf Ratbane again."




That's inconvenient.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That's inconvenient.




It's science.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

753 votes.  We definitely could use 200 more, at the least.

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  10%

  Option 6:  29%


----------



## Ydars

Is it just me or have the edition wars started to quiet down; I don't mean that we don't still talk about this stuff but just that the "don't particularly care for/have issues with 4E crowd seem to be the only ones posting here nowadays? Perhaps it is only in this forum section?

I have noticed that a number of pro-4e posters don't seem to have posted in months. I wonder if the edition wars have seriously affected the long-term gamers who love 4e and has encouraged them to move to other boards. That would be sad if so.

It might also explain the recent poll results.


----------



## Monkey Boy

It could be apathy and fatigue. It's the same arguments ad nauseum. 

Or it could be that ENworld, given the number of years we've been playing based on an other poll, has an old school mentality. We may not be dragonsfoot but give it a couple of more years.


----------



## CleverNickName

I don't care for politics, but I like polls.  (shrug)

It doesn't really matter if we have consensus or not, frankly.  I don't let public opinion dictate what games I enjoy playing.  I am not making some weird socio-economic statement to Hasbro or WotC by choosing 3.5E over 4E.  I'm just playing an enjoyable game with my friends.


----------



## Ifni

I voted "slight changeover" - I'm currently playing in one 4e PbP game. I'm playing in several earlier-edition PbPs, and if I play a tabletop/online campaign in the future I'd want it to be 3.5, not 4e, unless it was just a quick low-level one-shot.

I may not keep playing at all: my enthusiasm for D&D and RPGs as a whole has really declined with the end of Living Greyhawk - but then again, I only started playing about five years ago, when I was introduced to LG. What saddens me is that the same seems to be true for some friends of mine who've been playing for MUCH longer, since 1st edition, but are now talking about quitting.


----------



## Verys Arkon

I'm for 4e, but I've noticed I'm back to lurking more on EN World again.  Not sure why exactly.  

On the topic of new players, I've recruited three new-to-TTRPGs players (one of which has in turn recruited three others and started DMing) with 4e.  In comparison, I've lost two 3.5e players, but I attribute that to WoW, not 4e, since they don't TTRPG at all now.

None of the new players frequent EN World.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Approaching 800 votes (778)

  Still 32/58/10%, with 29% choosing Option 6.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

788 votes.  Only 10 votes this day ...


----------



## S'mon

The voting %s have been remarkably consistent over hundreds of votes, with No Change sticking in the 56-58% range.  That has got to be a significant finding.  Sure, ENWers aren't typical D&Ders.  We're older, more enthusiastic, we spend a lot more money on RPGs.  We're GMs.  We bring a lot of new players in.  We may only be a few thousand people, but we're a significant demographic.  

This has got to be bad news for WotC's strategy.


----------



## Sammael

S'mon said:


> The voting %s have been remarkably consistent over hundreds of votes, with No Change sticking in the 56-58% range.  That has got to be a significant finding.  Sure, ENWers aren't typical D&Ders.  We're older, more enthusiastic, we spend a lot more money on RPGs.  We're GMs.  We bring a lot of new players in.  We may only be a few thousand people, but we're a significant demographic.
> 
> This has got to be bad news for WotC's strategy.



Well, I can only speak for myself, but:

Amount of cash spent annually on WotC products pre-4E: at least $2000 per year (books and miniatures)

Amount of cash spent on WotC products in 2008: $200-$300

Budget for WotC products in 2009: $0 (I may buy a couple of minis, but I'm no longer a completist DDM collector)

Number of players introduced to D&D annually pre-4E: 5-6

Number of players introduced to D&D in 2008: 0

Time spent playing D&D and prepping for D&D games pre-4E: About 15 hours per week, on average

Time spent playing D&D and prepping for D&D games in 2008: Less than 1 hour per week, on average

Time spent playing non-WotC games in 2008: About 6 hours per week, on average


----------



## DaveMage

Sammael said:


> Budget for WotC products in 2009: $0 (I may buy a couple of minis, but I'm no longer a completist DDM collector)




I probably will only be buying a couple of mins (singles from Auggies) and one set of monster minis with the aboleth in the see-through packaging.  I will also buy one of each set of dungeon tiles.

But, yeah, I used to buy everything as well.  (I kinda like having the extra money, so not liking 4E has really, really turned out to be a good thing in these economic times..)


----------



## Nebulous

Interesting poll results.  Looks like roughly 2/3 of the voters on Enworld don't play 4e at all.


----------



## Nebulous

S'mon said:


> The voting %s have been remarkably consistent over hundreds of votes, with No Change sticking in the 56-58% range.  That has got to be a significant finding.  Sure, ENWers aren't typical D&Ders.  We're older, more enthusiastic, we spend a lot more money on RPGs.  We're GMs.  We bring a lot of new players in.  We may only be a few thousand people, but we're a significant demographic.
> 
> This has got to be bad news for WotC's strategy.




I didn't read over this whole thread, and i just now voted (we play 4e and nothing else) but my thoughts mirror yours.  Enworld is not indicitive of every D&D player, surely not, but neither are the Nielson Ratings for tv.  The results are extrapolated to represent the rest of America. 

What DOES this poll mean, if anything, or is just hot air in a random poll?


----------



## catsclaw227

Nebulous said:


> Interesting poll results.  Looks like roughly 2/3 of the voters on Enworld don't play 4e at all.



I think it's more accurate to say that roughly 2/3 of the voters OF THIS POLL don't play 4e at all.  Even if 1000 people are considered a sample, this sample is a bit skewed towards active participants. I am not sure of the relevance towards total Enworld members.

But you did say 2/3 of the VOTERS on Enworld.....


----------



## DaveMage

Nebulous said:


> Interesting poll results.  Looks like roughly 2/3 of the voters on Enworld don't play 4e at all.





Nah - I just have 500 aliases.


----------



## Nebulous

DaveMage said:


> Nah - I just have 500 aliases.




Heh, heh, i should have guessed it was just one very determined person to skew the results!


----------



## ki11erDM

I am thinking a better poll would be: Have you stopped coming to Enworld message boards since you switched to 4e?

The main reason I say that is that I am the only member of my play group that comes to these boards now.  And I can’t blame them for not wanting to deal with the disdain the long timers have for 4e.  It is sad to see these boards become almost completely useless.


----------



## Sammael

ki11erDM said:


> I am thinking a better poll would be: Have you stopped coming to Enworld message boards since you switched to 4e?
> 
> The main reason I say that is that I am the only member of my play group that comes to these boards now.  And I can’t blame them for not wanting to deal with the disdain the long timers have for 4e.  It is sad to see these boards become almost completely useless.



Interesting. I stopped posting on ENWorld sometime in August and reverted to lurking (and not even that for a while) because of the pro-4E hysteria that was going on. I was drawn back a short while ago because I saw that people who weren't absolutely in love with 4E were finally once again allowed to express their opinions without a legion of pro-4E fans jumping at their throats the moment they voiced their dissent. 

I guess this proves that ENWorld works in cycles. I'm sure the pro-4E people will be back with a vengeance in a month or two.


----------



## resistor

Sammael said:


> Interesting. I stopped posting on ENWorld sometime in August and reverted to lurking (and not even that for a while) because of the pro-4E hysteria that was going on. I was drawn back a short while ago because I saw that people who weren't absolutely in love with 4E were finally once again allowed to express their opinions without a legion of pro-4E fans jumping at their throats the moment they voiced their dissent.
> 
> I guess this proves that ENWorld works in cycles. I'm sure the pro-4E people will be back with a vengeance in a month or two.




My experience is the same.  I pretty much stopped visiting ENWorld altogether for most of the summer/fall because I felt unwelcome amidst the furor of 4e love.  I've only come back recently since things seem to have died down.


----------



## Nebulous

Sammael said:


> I guess this proves that ENWorld works in cycles. I'm sure the pro-4E people will be back with a vengeance in a month or two.




Cycles, yes, but maybe a lot of those pro-4e lovers, after 6 months of game experience, have cooled off some. It's a good system, but not the be-all-end-all of gaming.


----------



## Wicht

Darrin Drader said:


> This would be true if 4E was actually a move forward. The general consensus is that 4E is a fairly large step in the opposite direction.




Hey Darrin, I voted in the last category, haven't tried 4e.  Don't plan on it unless I meet someone who happens to invite me to a game.  I have no interest in buying the books (Paizo and Green Ronin gets all my money at the moment) .  But I think that saying 4e goes backwards as a game is a bit unfair.  In my mind it was neither a step forward or backwards.  It was just such a huge step sideways that it lost me.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I don't know if this poll has any meaning at all ... but I believe that the more votes that are cast, the more meaningful it might be.


----------



## catsclaw227

Darrin Drader said:


> D&D failed because the company built around it went bankrupt and ceased publication, prompting the WotC buyout. That's the definition of failure.



Actually, it was TSR failed, not D&D. D&D didn't fail any more than fruit fails just because Dole goes out of business.



Darrin Drader said:


> This would be true if 4E was actually a move forward. The general consensus is that 4E is a fairly large step in the opposite direction.



I've seen no evidence to support this theory.  If anything, the move was lateral.  Yes, very different, but not backwards.   

Personally, I believe it is a forward step, but I am not going to state this as something factual and use a blanket "general consensus" statement to make me feel better about it.


----------



## BryonD

catsclaw227 said:


> Personally, I believe it is a forward step, but I am not going to state this as something factual and use a blanket "general consensus" statement to make me feel better about it.




It is interesting, because many of 4E fans have praised that it moves BACK to the play feel of prior editions. 

I agree with that assessment, but to me it is a flaw.  1E was great in its day, but it was really all there was.  I'm sure there were others, but not that many and certainly not to me as a young kid.  I left 2E because it was "just as good" as 1E, but really nothing more.  I didn't stop enjoying it until I found other games that had taken the RPG concept and pushed it into larger areas.  I didn't return to 3E because it had the name D&D on it.  I returned because, in my assessment, it learned from a lot of those other games and continued to expand the degree of mechanically based virtual reality that could be formed.  4E has reversed that course and has been praised for doing it.


----------



## catsclaw227

I derived from reading Darrin's post that he was referring to evolutionary progression and regression when he described 4e as a move backwards instead of forward.

In this case progression assumes improvement, whether it is simplification via elegance or advancement via complexity or number of options.

Regression assumes a deterioration or decline.

I see the game as progressing.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> It is interesting, because many of 4E fans have praised that it moves BACK to the play feel of prior editions.



By the definitions stated above, this could be considered moving forward.   To many, taking on characteristics or traits of prior editions isn't moving backwards, it is simply applying lessons learned and allowing history to improve -- or move forward as it were -- the game.


----------



## Sammael

In my view, 4E is not an evolution of 3.x (or D&D as a whole). In that sense, it cannot be referred to as "progression." Rather, it is a completely different game that only bears the D&D moniker for trademark purposes, and, as such, is not "evolutionary."

3E kept most of the concepts that existed in AD&D and (generally) updated them to be in line with the trends in RPG development which were current at the time. If you opened an AD&D book and looked up a concept, chances are it had a counterpart in 3E (kits became prestige classes, nonweapon proficiencies became skills, Skills & Powers stuff became feats, saves were streamlined, etc).

4E apparently started in much the same way, but somewhere along the line, the developers apparently said "to hell with it, this is just too hard to fix," developed a new game, and then stuck a few D&D-isms on it to lure people to convert. This is not evolution. The developers did not "fix" 3.x, they developed a whole new game; that game has a lot of problems on its own, some of which are the same as the problems that existed in 3.x (and it is undeniable that 3.x had its own slew of problems). This is not to say that 4E is not a good game, it's simply a _different_ one, and to me (and a lot of other people), it's sufficiently different that we cannot consider it as the next step in the evolution of D&D. 

I'll stand by my opinion that if 4E were developed by a 3rd party and not by the largest player in the market, it would have been a niche game - with a level of acceptance akin to that of Blue Rose or True 20 at best.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

817 votes.

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  10%

  Those choosing Option 6:  30%

  These results have held steady for the last 200 votes cast, perhaps longer.

  -

  I wish to consider an alternative way of looking at this poll, and that is adding Option 5 to the No Changeover Category.
  This is justified by the fact that Option 2 is in the Changeover Category.
  Option 2 says:  Mostly 4E.  Option 5 says mostly Prior Editions.  So, why not add Option 5 to the No Changeover category?

  Or ...

  Remove Option 2 from the Changeover Category.

  Here are the results IF Option 5 is added to the No Changeover Category AND Option 2 is retained for the Changeover Category:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  62%

  Here are the results IF Option 5 is *not* added to the No Changeover Category AND Option 2 is *not* retained for the Changeover Category:

  Changeover:  25%
  No Changeover:  58%

  Note that a fair number of people have (as you can see) voted for Option 2, and I included in in Changeover.
  A few people (4%) voted for Option 5, and I did *not* include it in No Changeover.

  This is my mistake.
  I can't fix that mistake now, or I create a discontinuity with the First Changeover Poll.
  I merely wanted to put all this up, for comparison, and - if you wish - analysis.

  Any way you cut it, though ... the No Changeovers definitely have this poll.  
  I don't know if it's because ENWorld favors earlier editions, or earlier edition people vote more enthusiastically, or if 4E is in trouble, or if the 4E enthusiasts simply didn't bother to vote, or if people have stuffed the ballot box, or whatever ... but I would have to say that in this poll the No Changeovers Have It.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I still need at least another 150 votes for this poll, to put it on a parity with the first Changeover Poll.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I still need at least another 150 votes for this poll, to put it on a parity with the first Changeover Poll.



You do know that if you get your 150 more votes, and there's a sudden major shift in the percentages, it will actually be indicative of something like ballot-box stuffing?

So if you hit 1000 votes and things stay pretty much the same, the 850 votes you have now works fine.  And if you hit 1000 votes and the percentages change significantly, the results will be suspect.

At this point, your 850 votes are, practically speaking, at least as meaningful as 1000 votes would be.


----------



## BryonD

catsclaw227 said:


> By the definitions stated above, this could be considered moving forward.   To many, taking on characteristics or traits of prior editions isn't moving backwards, it is simply applying lessons learned and allowing history to improve -- or move forward as it were -- the game.




Yes, moving backwards is moving forward.
Also up is down, left is right and most importantly of all, all communication breakdowns have been eliminated.


----------



## FireLance

Everything you know is wrong! 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGC09B810Yk]YouTube - Everything You Know Is Wrong[/ame]


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> Yes, moving backwards is moving forward.
> Also up is down, left is right and most importantly of all, all communication breakdowns have been eliminated.




Only when one insists on playing silly pedantic games.

A product can hearken back to earlier styles/themes and still be a progression.

A PT Cruiser, for example, looks backwards towards old roadsters.  Yet, it is in all ways a modern car - it has all the modern goodies and toys and the engine certainly is not even remotely close to something you'd find under the hood 50 years ago.  Yet, it does borrow inspiration heavily from 50 year old cars.

So, yes, you can certainly draw on what came before for inspiration while moving forward with new concepts.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Hussar said:
			
		

> A product can hearken back to earlier styles/themes and still be a progression.




Absofrigginlutely. 

Heck, the fact 4e moved closer to 1e/OD&D/BECM is a huge *positive* as far as I'm concerned.  

I realize others may not agree, but - really - who cares? 

Play what you like. Don't crap on what other people play. Drink your milk.

WP


----------



## National Acrobat

My group plays 1E, we tried 4E for two months because everyone told us how much it was like 1E, and well, no, it's not. We are back to playing 1E after giving 4E a try.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(humor, off-topic)

  This sounds like a Star Fleet Battles discussion.

  For example, we have the Klingon D7 Heavy Cruiser, but this is a more advanced version of the Klingon D6, which were - are still are - often used as Prison Ships.  Some D7s and older D6s are retrofitted as D7Ds and D6Ds, which means they are Drone Heavy Cruisers, able to fire a large number of drones (thermonuclear missles capable of transwarp speed.)
  Some D7s enjoyed an upgrade to their phaser banks, giving them PH-1s in the forward Boom, instead of the PH-2s with the inferior fire control (a problem the Federation solved but which plagued many other races for decades.)
  A couple of D7s were modified, I believe, to become Maulers, where most of the systems were ripped out and replaced with batteries, and a giant transwarp gun put in place to blast the energy out.  This could blow away enemy ships in one mighty hit, but it could wreck the Mauler in so doing.  The hull just wasn't built for such purposes.

  When the General War started, the Klingons realized the D7 was cost ineffective, so they ceased production of this Heavy Cruiser (they had enough of them, in active fleets and in mothball, in any case) and began the production of War Cruisers.
  The Klingon War Cruiser used a smaller and cheaper hull, and had far fewer systems (it was ineffective as a research and exploratory ship, unlike the D7), but it had the same firepower and shield capacity, and the same power capacity, as the D7.  The War Cruiser came in 2 variants, the Heavy and Light War Cruisers.  These heavily modified D7s also came with new and improved drone racks, and vastly improved drones.

  Some D7s were modified to be Carriers, and became known as D7Cs.  This didn't entirely work out, since they could not carry enough fighters and they had to strip the armaments out of the ship to make room for the hangar bays.  But fighters were far cheaper to build, so if fighters took out expensive enemy ships and you lost the fighters in so doing, you won (a point the Klingons had learned well from their battles with the Hydrans, the Ultimate Fighter Race.)

  When small warp engines came into use, they invented this hideous monstrosity known as a Fast Patrol Ship.  Built on a tiny hull smaller than that of a frigate, and quite cheap to produce, they had the firepower of a Heavy Cruiser (D7 and others.)  They didn't last long in combat, but they tended to eat enemy ships for dinner, and losing them cost the victorious power nothing.
  Some D7s were equipped with mech links (specialized tractor beams) in order to carry these nasty little warships.  Again, though, it didn't quite work out.  A larger hull was needed than the D7 possessed, and the C8 and C9 dreadnaught hulls, and the mighty B10 battleship hulls, provided the needed size.  Specialized PF Tenders were also produced, to carry 6 of these little monsters into battle (the tender had no weapons, but the 6 little ships were like 6 Heavy Cruisers coming at you.)

  The Klingons were never able to make a Space Control Ship out of the D7.  It simply didn't have a big enough hull.  What was a SCS?  It was a Carrier and a PF Tender, and it had the weapons of a Dreadnaught.  All the races built several of these ships (the Klingons gleefully converted one their B10 superships, into an SCS.)
  But the D7 never made the cut.

  By the end of the General War, most D7s had been destroyed or so modified as to be unrecognizable, or simply retired and the parts used for other purposes.  That was the end of the D7 design, or should have been.
  Except that those scientists working on the problem, came up with a whole new set of technologies, applied them, and created the DX, or D7 X-Ship, a highly evolved ship capable of running circles around other ships.  The Klingons were amongst the first to create an X-ship in this fashion.
  X-drones and X-fighters followed (but not X-PFs ... the superior shields and firepower of X-ships made them obsolete), so the DX became the workhorse of the new fleet.

  Due to the invasion of the ISC, and the temporary peace it caused, the Klingons had time to produce quite a large number of DXs, and just in time to save them from the Andromedans, arriving with their alien ships from that nearby galaxy.  Unlike other races, the Klingons withstood the assault and held most of their territory.  The DX played a crucial role in making this happen.

  There was even a D7 scout, although only one or two since D7s were needed for other purposes.  Equipped with Special Sensors, scouts explored in peacetime, and played Electronic Warfare for fellow ships, fighters, and PFs during wartime.  A most interesting thing, for they came with 2 points of ECM built in, and they could produce 12 points more (of ECM or ECCM) and keep it for themselves, or loan it to other ships/fighters/PFs.
  Nimble ships and fighters already came with ECM of their own, ECCM was a power consuming affair, and a lot of objects could lend their own ECM.  A lot of ships fired at point blank range, only to see their Phasers did little and their Heavy Weapons miss.  Not a pretty sight.

  Where is the Retro in all this?
  Most of the battles fought were *not* fought with the newest, latest equipment, but with old, antiquated equipment (you could count on the military spending the money elsewhere, not on you and your ship.  Or, if you somehow attained importance, Klingonese politics came into the picture and you got demoted to the D6 Prison Ship for some incompetency or minor error you did not commit.)
  If the phasers worked, if the disruptors fired, if the transporters and tractor beams worked, if the ship made it out of the Starbase without half of the rotted internal circuitry not burning up (much less when you blasted off into translight) you could count yourself lucky.  They didn't call these Mothballed Ships for no reason.  If there was a single drone in the drone rack, or more than one shuttle that actually worked, or a single transporter bomb, you were pretty lucky.
  Your one break?  The Other Side had the same problem.

  Now, that's Retro.  As Retro as it gets.  
  You could have had the Phaser-I upgrade.  Speed 30 (Warp 3) drones.   Scatterpacks.  10 Transporter Bombs.  Special Shuttles.  All sorts of ship upgrades.  Instead, you had a cloud of dust everytime you sat in the Captain's Chair, and the viewscreen wouldn't work half the time you asked for it's use (not that you wanted to see or talk with the Hydrans anyways, but still ...)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

As in D&D, there were multiple editions of Star Fleet Battles, and the Klingons evolved substantially with each change (especially with those B10s ...)

  There were:

  The Star Fleet Battles Pocket Edition
  The Star Fleet Battles Designers Edition
  The Star Fleet Battles Commanders Edition
  The Star Fleet Battles Captains Edition (also known as the Doomsday Edition)

  As with D&D, each had their errata and corrections, and added material (supplements, in D&D terms.)
  My favorite race, the Hydrans, were in one of those supplements, for the Designers Edition.  

  It is possible to play any edition of Star Fleet Battles.
  What is it not possible to do?
  It is not possible to play any edition of Star Fleet Battles without memorizing one heck of a lot of rules, then having an arbitrator to make rulings on the rules because nobody understood what they read, can't agree on what to do in the midst of the game, and nobody likes an argument (hopefully.)

  Without these things, nasty things occurred ... like someone taking the 120 points allocated to him to build a Heavy Cruiser, and instead welding 6 Large Freighter Hulls together, replacing all Cargo with Battery and APR (Auxillary Power Reactor), sticking 3 Warp Engines at one end, a Bridge at the other end, and adding one giant gun - a super Mauler - thus creating the first (and the only) Star Fleet Battles Death Star (it did up to 800 points of damage in a single shot, enough to destroy a Heavy Cruiser 4 to 8 times over, or mess up a planet real badly.)
  Now, the fact that this cannot actually be done, because Freighter Hulls cannot be used for this purpose, could not withstand the shock of firing even an ordinary weapon - much less a giant gun, and Maulers cannot be stuck on Freighter Hulls by any race except the WYN, wasn't relevant ... because when the referee says spend 120 points and Build What You Want, ANYTHING You Want ... then anything can happen.  : D

  Nuts.  It almost worked.
  My brother beat me to the punch before I could zap everyone on the board, all 12 of them (running like the scared chickens they would have been!) with my giant fiendish monstrosity.
  (sighs)
  Ah me.  Now, tell me about editions.  And I can tell you a lot of stories about various editions of various games.  So many stories.  So many ...

  (My brother, for anyone interested, took a large Andromedan ship, the Intruder, put a small ship with a Mauler known as the Terminator on it on a rotating platform, and the it acted as a 360 weapon, parked on top of the Intruder (which protected it with it's giant Power Absorbers.
  Probably the one ship I could not have easily zapped, but the mess that caused when it appeared, upstaged me.  I regret it to this day.  
  Why?
  Because it was *MY* day to shine, to run around and zap everyone!  Not his!  My day.  My day to chase them all down and kill, kill, KILL, KILL, KILL!!

  They would have gotten my ship in the end (of course, I expected that, and planned to go out in a mighty explosion of glory.)  But, by God, it would have been so fun, playing Death Star on them.
  Curses on that clever Andromedan (if I ever get a rematch, I will destroy any and all Andromedans *first*, and then no more upstaging of the one and only Edena_of_Neith!)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> My favorite race, the Hydrans,




You and me both!

In our group, we had one guy who was a Fed master, another who ran Romulans like he had pointed ears, and then me with my crafty crafty Hydrans (I also liked Tholians, Kzinti, and the occasional Gorn).

Best game ever?  Massive fleet action between 2 teams of 2 players. Team 1: Klingons & Lyrans.  Team 2 (mine): Hydrans and Tholians.  The scenario was a fleet action in which the Hydrans were trying to invade a little appendix of Klingon space, joining up with the Tholians, leading to the cutting off and capture of a few Klingon planets & starbases.

The Klingons and Lyrans did most of the shooting...but my battle plan caused them to retreat in defeat.


----------



## Scribble

You guys play Star Trek... heheheh NERDS!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

*overloading Fusion Beams, charging Hellbores, and coming around with shields up and reinforced*

Smile when you say that!


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Personally I thought the ISC were the best but the Hydrans were my next choice. Fighting the Kzinti was always a pain.


----------



## Alzrius

Brown Jenkin said:


> Fighting the Kzinti was always a pain.




It's all about the Xindi, not the Kzinti - primates and reptilians and aquatics, oh my!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

It's not quite Star Trek.  It's ... Star Fleet Battles.  

  In the original Star Trek, the Klingons used the Disruptor as their primary weapon.  Later, in Star Trek the Next Generation, they upgraded to Photon Torpedoes and Phasers.

  In Star Fleet Battles, there is no Star Trek, the Next Generation, since they never had the Copyrights for it. 
  The Klingons in the *Star Trek* era had the Disruptor, and it was a more effective weapon than shown in Star Trek (although, it isn't terribly effective sometimes, even in Star Fleet Battles.)
  The Klingons also carry a large number of Phasers on their ships.  These are known as Phaser-IIs.  The strongest type of Phaser is the Phaser-I (used by the Federation, using superior computer targeting systems) then the Phaser-II (inferior targetting but the same amount of power), then the Phaser-III (low powered, short range), and the Phaser-Gatling (PH-G, a nasty variant of the PH-3, invented by the Hydrans.)
  Starbases and other stationary units - and ONLY stationary units - have Phaser-IVs, an extremely powerful model based on great energy and on superior computer targetting (easier from a stationary unit, impossible to put on any ship, even ones like the B-10 ... despite endless efforts to do it.)

  The Klingons also had drones.  These are powerful thermonuclear (and sometimes anti-matter) warheads, and move at up to over Warp 3 across the board.  These are very versatile, and one can put them into Shuttles for even more versatility.
  Drones were never used by the Klingons in Star Trek.  It is well for Captain Kirk that they were not.  Otherwise, a certain Federation ship - when it lost it's warp power - would have been pounded by Klingon drones until it disintegrated.  

  The Klingons in Star Fleet Battles never upgraded to the Photon Torpedo.  There was no need.
  They upgraded their Disruptors instead.  They upgraded their Phasers.  They upgraded their Drones.  And Shuttles.  Photon Torpedoes?  Bah, who needs them?

  Now, that is Retro with a Vengeance.  A Klingon, will be a Klingon!  And if you do not fear their weapons, you will learn fear.  Oh yes, you will.  These are not your Father's Klingons.  : )


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> A product can hearken back to earlier styles/themes and still be a progression.



That generalization is very true.
However, it does not apply to the specific case in question.

The very point that has been praised is that it no longer tries to do all the things that 3E went for and rolled back to simplification.

Saying that regressing to a easier standard is more enjoyable then fine, I won't dispute your personal preference.  But going back to reaching for less does not meet my definition of progress.


----------



## BryonD

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Absofrigginlutely.
> 
> Heck, the fact 4e moved closer to 1e/OD&D/BECM is a huge *positive* as far as I'm concerned.



 Again, I'm certain it is a positive for you.  That has nothing to do with my point.




> I realize others may not agree, but - really - who cares?
> 
> Play what you like. Don't crap on what other people play. Drink your milk.
> 
> WP



How about: take your own advice?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

My favorite race, the Hydrans, were the first race to pioneer the Fighter.
  These nasty little things are not like the ships in Star Wars.  They are not like World War II line of sight, line of fire, ships.  They are far more sophisticated ... they employ computers to target their weapons with devastating accuracy, and they have heavy shielding (it takes the equivalent of a 20 megaton explosion to destroy one, or what we would call 8 points of weapons damage.)

  Fighters can be flown by pilots, but the sensical approach is that they are computer controlled, since they are considered *totally* expendable, and are regularly expended as Standard Procedure.  Flying a Fighter is only for those with a death wish.

  So, why didn't the Hydrans mess everyone over?

  The Hydrans were just a little *too* retro.  They got their fighters, and their weapons (the Fusion Beam, the Phaser-G) and sat on them.  They did not develop anything new until almost the General War.
  When they developed new weaponry (the Hellbore) they wasted it in that Grand Disaster known as the Flight of the Expeditionary Fleet.

  What the Hydrans were good at, *had* to be good at, was Playing Chicken.
  As you know, when you are closing with an enemy ship, you and that ship do not fire simultaneously - one or the other fires first.
  If I fire first, and devastate your ship, your weapons are damaged, and you cannot fire back!!  Now, you're toast (or, prisoners in our methane atmosphere, which amounts to the same thing ... Klingons take no prisoners, and we Hydrans don't like you.)

  My Fusion Beams are TREMENDOUSLY POWERFUL weapon ... IF I close to 10,000 kilometers or less.  It is fair to 20,000 kilometers.  It is lousy beyond that.
  My Phaser-Gatlings are useless beyond 20,000 kilometers, but within that range they are one-weapon wrecking crews.
  My fighters carry one or both weapons.  They are closing on your ship also.

  Your disruptors are extremely good to 80,000 kilometers, your Phaser-IIs out to 50,000 kilometers.  Your drones lock on and can blow my fighters (and my ship) to smithereens, if they can get through.

  So, I am coming right at you, and you right at me.  Both our Front Shields are at 100%.
  Now, we are at 50,000 kilometers and closing.  You could fire!  You could fire, do maximum damage, while still out of range of my weapons!
  But you cannot do enough damage, to do more than down my Front Shield.  You cannot seriously damage my ship.  (My fighters and your drones took each other out.)

  So, will you dare to close to where your weapons work better?  If you do, I may get you to point blank range.  If I do, you will damage my ship (if you get a chance to fire) but *your* ship will be destroyed.  Fusion Beams and Phaser-Gatlings tend to do that, at point blank range.  I can Overload those Fusion Beams, or even Suicide Overload them.  Phaser-Gs can be overloaded.  You will not survive.
  But if you fire, then turn to run (known as a High Speed Turn), then I just may catch you anyways, and fire through your weak Rear Shield ... goodbye Klingons!
  Or I'll hold my fire, speed up, and catch you next turn, when your rear to me and your weapons turned away, and I'll fry you before you can turn around and fight.

  So, you choose to close.  50,000 kilometers.  You do not fire.  Neither do I.
  40,000.  You could do so much damage, and I could still do only minimal!  But I do not fire, and neither do you.
  30,000!  All your weapons will hit.  You could still turn away.  You might even evade me.  Will you fire?  I have not.  Make up your mind!! ... I will be on you in seconds!
  20,000!  You fire!  Everything!  Alpha Strike!  My shield is downed!  My ship is damaged!  I didn't fire, and some of my weapons are destroyed.

  You blew it.
  I close to point blank range, fire everything I have, and even with only partial weaponry, my Suicide Overloaded Fusion Beams and overloaded PH-Gs are too much.  Chalk up another Fried Klingon Ship.

  Of course, this game of Chicken includes my fighters, your drones, ECM and ECCM, shuttles, and of course the infamous transporter bombs.  Things get pretty hairy when you go toe-to-toe with any ship, much less a Hydran ship.  Did you expect it to be any other way?

  There is one hard and fast rule you know, that all Klingons know, and it is both an advantage and a curse:
  I WILL try to close to point-blank range.  As a Hydran, that is my bread and butter.  I will try to sucker you into that trap at all costs.  And all those fighters of mine, WILL be sacrificed to achieve this ultimate goal (since it costs virtually nothing to rebuild fighters, the Hydran Kingdom loses nothing here.)
  There will be no pity, no mercy, only ruthless cunning to trick you into that point-blank encounter.  If you fall for it, your vaporized remains are another trophy for the Hydran Kingdom, I go on to be promoted, and you - if you escaped in the Boom - are executed for incompetency by the Klingon Empire.

  The way it should be.  You stinking Klingons, you think you can overrun the Hydran Kingdom?  Ha, ha, ha.  You might as well wish those lofty Federation types would just submit to your so-called superior firepower, and allow you to annex them.

  All THIS, and we haven't gotten into the Hellbore Cannon.  Oh no ... there are worse things than Fusion Beams out there.  There are Surprises you don't want to meet.  They say Klingons fear nothing.  Well, we'll teach you fear.
  But even with our Retro weapons, our Fusion Beams, we can accomplish quite enough.  As you well know.

  THE Retro Weapon of Star Fleet Battles, the Fusion Cannon, the primary Heavy Weapon of my favorite race, the Hydrans, for most of the time prior to the General War.
  Go Retro!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

So yeah, as a Hydran Player of many years in SFB, stuck with the Fusion Beam (as I said, and most would agree, *the* Retro Weapon of that game), I can discuss Retro.
  I can Talk Shop on Retro.  I know what it is to do with the Older and the Outdated.

  Hellbores?  They are the 4E of the Hydran Fleet (many would disagree with that, but that's an analogy.)
  They are new and better.  They are desirable.  They are the Latest Thing (and they also are a terrifying weapon that makes even *me* want to sympathize with the Klingons.)

  But I can go Retro.  I have those Fusion Beams.  Let's have that little game of Chicken.  Cmon Klingon Commander, lets do some Chicken.
  I ... can't wait for the inevitable outcome!  (maniacal laugh of glee.)  It's a party, a slugfest party, and you're invited!  An invitation I will not allow you to refuse!

  Hellbores?  A cool weapon.  A grand weapon.  The Latest Thing.  The 4E thing.
  I fire my Hellbores, and fully HALF the damage goes through your weakest shield, regardless of whether you are facing me or not.  I can Overload Hellbores, and their range is tremendous.
  From 80,000 kilometers, I can down your rear shield and damage your ship with my Hellbores, and you can't touch me.
  The next time around (I simply turned and recharged, then closed again) I smash your ship, tremendous power coming through the downed shield.
  You might as well surrender now, Klingon Scum.  Because then I *might* take prisoners.  You might even be allowed to live as a menial worker in the mines of Hydrax, if you behave yourself as a cooperative prisoner.

  But, Earlier Editions (Fusion Beams and PH-Gs, and fighters) or 4E (Hellbores, PH-Gs, and some fighters) I still win.
  I always win.
  I represent the Hydran Kingdom, and you are the pathetic Klingons, so weep and curse in despair!  The Hydrans, cometh!

  In D&D, I win with either 4E or any Earlier Edition.
  In SFB, I win with any Hydran ship, with any weapon.  Be it Retro or the Latest, the Hydran Always Wins.  : )


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

So, all my talk of SFB, is not so off-topic as it seems.  It relates directly to the so-called Edition Wars.

  The Hydrans were content with Retro or Advanced.  And so am I, with their weapons of any kind.
  And so am I, with any Edition of D&D.  Retro or the Latest!

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith

  (Incidentally, the Hydrans *did* have their own Edition Wars.  Some hated the Fusion Beam, some hated the Hellbore Cannon.  But all lived with what they had, and they accomplished quite a lot with it.
  Had they not been overly confident and sent the Expeditionary Fleet to it's doom, they might have fared far better in the General War.  THAT was a matter of mismanagement, but it was unrelated to any Edition War!)

  (EDIT:  What did the Hydrans do that was so catastrophic?  They sent one of their four fleets, with 20 ships, right into the heart of the Klingon Empire, trying to break through to the Federation.  The Klingons sicced about a hundred ships on them.  The result was inevitable.  The Federation ... curse their cowardly spines! ... refused to enter the war on the excuse that no Hydran ship reached their border.  Those chickens!  Bawk ... bawk, bawk ... bawk!)


----------



## Greylock

Sammael said:


> Interesting. I stopped posting on ENWorld sometime in August and reverted to lurking (and not even that for a while) because of the pro-4E hysteria...






resistor said:


> ..I pretty much stopped visiting ENWorld altogether for most of the summer/fall because I felt unwelcome amidst the furor of 4e love...




I can, off the top of my head, list five people I know in real life who stopped posting here because of the "hysterical" and over-the-top response to 4th edition, who felt shouted down whenever they said anything good about prior editions, not just 3.x. Yes, I recognize that things are a little different now, but ENWorld lost those guys. They don't come by at all anymore.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Greylock said:


> I can, off the top of my head, list five people I know in real life who stopped posting here because of the "hysterical" and over-the-top response to 4th edition, who felt shouted down whenever they said anything good about prior editions, not just 3.x. Yes, I recognize that things are a little different now, but ENWorld lost those guys. They don't come by at all anymore.




I saw several people here fade away or stop posting because of how they were treated for enjoying previous editions, or having the _nerve_ to say 4e wasn't perfect.  They weren't 4e haters in the slightest, and yet these forums became very, very hostile to anyone in an almost religious manner to anyone who disliked anything about 4e.  Even people who DID like 4e were shouted down and insulted for claiming there were parts of the game they weren't keen on.  Celtavian's thread was the biggest "Oh what the hell" moment for me, when he, a very long time and intelligent poster, said nothing more then "Well, I tried 4e, and I didn't like it."  The rest of the thread were other posters insulting him, screaming at him, and telling him to leave the forums and never return.


----------



## merelycompetent

ProfessorCirno said:


> I saw several people here fade away or stop posting because of how they were treated for enjoying previous editions...




I really hope that this hatred passes soon. I really miss the constructive discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of the various rules, mods, and editions. It made converting from 2E to 3E (and later to 3.5E) a LOT easier. Now, the really good ideas are getting lost or stifled by a lot of overwrought reactions and re-reactions because person A does not like the exact same game that person B does. I'm certainly missing those conversion, improvement, and *fun* ideas for 4E.

We're losing a lot of good input from talented and imaginative people. Every time someone from WotC (who can offer direct insight into HOW and WHY something was changed) posts, the responses get more extreme. I don't blame them for avoiding the message boards.

I think this poll shows why people are getting so defensive in their responses. And I would give blood to hear what the 4E designers think.

(Not necessarily MY blood, mind you. But definitely some from that goblin in the next room...)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(solemnly)

  People leaving ENWorld over the edition change?
  People giving up the hobby over things?
  People losing friends, turning their back on their friends, over this?
  People wrecking gaming groups, turning messageboards into Flame Wars, destroying their own gaming material, throwing their gaming material away, over this?

  Hatred?  A mass outpouring of hatred?
  Violent anger?
  People hurling the most virulent of assaults on others?
  People willing to get themselves Banned, even Permabanned, over this?

  -

  Folks, I've seen all of the above, and more.  And I have something to say here.

  The decision to change over to 4E, and to *FORCE* everyone else to change (or else), was dreamed up by a few people (who are unknown, and probably not there anymore) at the very top of the echelon of Hasbro, unknown Corporate Executive Officers who saw things only in terms of a Hard World and the Bottom Line.
  Same thing with the decision to take back and shut down Dragon and Dungeon Magazine.

  This is not something done by the lower echelons of Hasbro.  It was not done by the spokespeople of Hasbro.  
  This was not done by anyone at WOTC.  They must do what Hasbro tells them, or truly it is 'else.'
  This was not done by anyone who worked for TSR.
  This was not done by anyone running or admining at a messageboard.
  This was not done by anyone posting to ENWorld.
  This was not done by anyone posting to any other gaming board.

  This was done by few nebulous people at the very top of Hasbro, people whose names I do not know, most do not know, and perhaps nobody knows since nobody knows who made the decisions, it seems.

  It will not help, to hate, to be angry, and to take both out on the innocent.
  All that will do, is make the situation for our Hobby worse.

  I think that if we must have a 'Flame War', why not have a merry Flame War over which weapon is better, Hydran Fusion Beams or the Hydran Hellbore, or Klingon Disruptors versus Federation Photon Torpedoes?

  NO amount of hate, anger, or vitrol is going to change (or even influence in the slightest way) the thinking of those who made (and make) the decisions.

  All we can do is stand together as a group, we the Gamers, and hope for the best that can be.  And do as we wish to do, regardless of what they tell us to do.
  If *I* told you that you *had* to use Gemidan's Paralytic Missile in your game (2nd level, autokill, better than Power Word Stun which is 7th) you'd be pretty upset at me, no?
  And you'd very nicely *ignore* me (which is what you should do!)

  Well then, play the game you want to play, and don't worry about what they tell you to do, since they *can't* tell you what to do.  That is a physical impossibility ... even if a few nebulous people don't realize that.

  I'll say it again:  it is not 3E versus 4E.  It is 3E *AND* 4E.  AND all the Other Editions.  AND all the Other Stuff.

  YOU are the ones with the final say.  YOU are the DMs here.  Not those few nebulous people.
  Do you want Dragon and Dungeon back?  It will happen, eventually ... even if they don't call the magazines by those names.  Because you want them, and you will find another magazine and make it into what you have lost.

  YOU are King and Queen here.  YOU are the Final Arbiters here.

  And I believe that WOTC is fully on your side (yes, that includes those that are ardent 4E supporters ... they have a right to support their favorite version of the game, of course!)
  Everyone who understands, knows that the Only Way is Your Way, and Your Way is what you choose.

  Nobody can ever take your position of Final Arbiter away from you.  Ever.  It is physically impossible.  Think about it, and see the truth in this.  The DM is the DM, not the player, and you are the DM.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Korgoth

Edena_of_Neith said:


> So, all my talk of SFB, is not so off-topic as it seems.




I probably come off as a knee-jerk grognard most of the time. In fact, cancel that knee part. But I really think that OD&D 1974 is the best edition, even though it was before my time!

However, when it comes to the beloved Star Fleet Universe... I'm a Federation Commander man. SFB is too complicated, dog! I just want to get in there and mix it up... I don't want to fill out a bunch of IRS forms. 

I'm mostly a Fed and a Lyran man. Though I'm going to be running a Hydran Monarch BB in our next session. That thing's a bear! Good thing for my gallant kitties that the Hydrans never got one of them built! I hate to think how long the shields on that sucker would take to sabre-dance away.


----------



## jensun

ProfessorCirno said:


> I saw several people here fade away or stop posting because of how they were treated for enjoying previous editions, or having the _nerve_ to say 4e wasn't perfect.  They weren't 4e haters in the slightest, and yet these forums became very, very hostile to anyone in an almost religious manner to anyone who disliked anything about 4e.  Even people who DID like 4e were shouted down and insulted for claiming there were parts of the game they weren't keen on.  Celtavian's thread was the biggest "Oh what the hell" moment for me, when he, a very long time and intelligent poster, said nothing more then "Well, I tried 4e, and I didn't like it."  The rest of the thread were other posters insulting him, screaming at him, and telling him to leave the forums and never return.



This is a very one sided account of things.

There were asshats on both sides of the argument.  I have seen just as much ridiculous over the top hyperbole from those who didnt like the new edition and just as much screaming incoherent hysteria. 

Some of those people still post here, some of them are posting in this thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Edena_of_Neith said:


> EDIT:  What did the Hydrans do that was so catastrophic?  They sent one of their four fleets, with 20 ships, right into the heart of the Klingon Empire, trying to break through to the Federation.  The Klingons sicced about a hundred ships on them.  The result was inevitable.  The Federation ... curse their cowardly spines! ... refused to enter the war on the excuse that no Hydran ship reached their border.  Those chickens!  Bawk ... bawk, bawk ... bawk!




Which is why, in our replaying of the Big War (using _Federation & Empire_ as reference), instead of going solo into the heart of the Klingon empire, my Hydrans opted to break through to the _Tholians_- enemy-of-my-enemy and all that- *and we succeeded.*  We got planets & resources that turned the tide very quickly.


----------



## Alzrius

Edena_of_Neith said:


> The decision to change over to 4E, and to *FORCE* everyone else to change (or else), was dreamed up by a few people (who are unknown, and probably not there anymore) at the very top of the echelon of Hasbro, unknown Corporate Executive Officers who saw things only in terms of a Hard World and the Bottom Line.
> Same thing with the decision to take back and shut down Dragon and Dungeon Magazine.
> 
> This is not something done by the lower echelons of Hasbro.  It was not done by the spokespeople of Hasbro.
> This was not done by anyone at WOTC.  They must do what Hasbro tells them, or truly it is 'else.'




My understanding is that all of these decisions were made by the people at WotC; Hasbro is fairly disinterested in what WotC does so long as they turn a profit, and doesn't give them orders about how exactly to run things, especially given that D&D isn't even WotC's biggest brand.


----------



## Zil

> Originally Posted by Edena_of_Neith
> The decision to change over to 4E, and to *FORCE* everyone else to change (or else), was dreamed up by a few people (who are unknown, and probably not there anymore) at the very top of the echelon of Hasbro, unknown Corporate Executive Officers who saw things only in terms of a Hard World and the Bottom Line.
> Same thing with the decision to take back and shut down Dragon and Dungeon Magazine.
> 
> This is not something done by the lower echelons of Hasbro. It was not done by the spokespeople of Hasbro.
> This was not done by anyone at WOTC. They must do what Hasbro tells them, or truly it is 'else.'
> My understanding is that all of these decisions were made by the people at WotC; Hasbro is fairly disinterested in what WotC does so long as they turn a profit, and doesn't give them orders about how exactly to run things, especially given that D&D isn't even WotC's biggest brand.






Alzrius said:


> My understanding is that all of these decisions were made by the people at WotC; Hasbro is fairly disinterested in what WotC does so long as they turn a profit, and doesn't give them orders about how exactly to run things, especially given that D&D isn't even WotC's biggest brand.




While it's rather clear that the 4E design choices, and the stumbled initial marketing campaign originated within WoTC, it's never been clear to me where the decisions made to step away from the OGL were made.  Were those made within WoTC or farther up the Hasbro chain?

But all that said and done, nobody was forcing anyone to do anything.  WoTC simply put out a new version of D&D (albeit a version with some radical changes from what has come before).  I'm sure they were hoping everyone would go along for the ride to the new version, but no one was forced to switch.   About the worse that they can be blamed for is (a) making design choices for the latest version that some people do not like and (b) attacking the previous version (and the OGL) in order to sell the latest version.


----------



## Zil

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Play what you like. Don't crap on what other people play. Drink your milk.
> 
> WP



... but what if I'm lactose intolerant?


----------



## Bagpuss

Wow, just wow. 

1/2 of folks that have tried 4E have gone back, but the same number haven't even bothered to try it. So from this poll, WotC have lost around 2/3 rds of their customers with the change to 4th Ed.

In know this is only ENWorld posters, but still, it is generally believed ENWorld is pretty pro-4E I wonder how this correlates elsewhere.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I just read something I still cannot believe, and I just *read* it, saw it with my own eyes.
  It's called Emotiv, and involves games employing a headset that allows the game to be influenced by your brainwaves (ala:  Mind Pong, and such a game seems to actually exist.)

  Now, this is something right out of the film Forbidden Planet, but this isn't a sci-fi film, it's supposedly going to be a game I can *buy* in stores in a few months.

  If that is true, then ... THIS is what D&D must compete with.

  Obviously, then, D&D has a hard row to hoe.  To make a drastic understatement.

  Until, of course, we have Virtual Mind D&D ... (ROLMAQ)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Edena, welcome to Lawnmower Man 3.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is why, in our replaying of the Big War (using _Federation & Empire_ as reference), instead of going solo into the heart of the Klingon empire, my Hydrans opted to break through to the _Tholians_- enemy-of-my-enemy and all that- *and we succeeded.*  We got planets & resources that turned the tide very quickly.




  (blinks)

  You broke through to the THOLIANS?
  That's *twice* as far, for the Expeditionary Fleet to go, as the Federation Border.

  Just how did you manage it?  You had the Klingon Border Fleet (Hydran), the Klingon Southern Fleet, the Klingon Border Fleet (Tholian), and both the Klingon Home Fleet and their Border Fleet (Federation) if they could intercept you.

  And how did you talk the Tholians into helping, once you got there?  Even the Federation couldn't convince them to join the war.

  -

  For anyone interested, the Expeditionary Fleet used the Hellbore Cannon.
  How does a Hellbore work?  How do the Hydrans work?  What would it look like in Star Trek?  What would combat look? 


  Sulu:  Sir, the Hydran Dragoon Heavy Cruiser is now at 80,000 kilometers.  All their weapons are overloaded.  Three Hydran fighters also at 80,000 kilometers, weapons readied.
  Captain Kirk:  We are at overload range, also.  Now is the moment!  Fire all weapons!

  (The Enterprise unleashes an Alpha Strike ... 2 of it's 4 overloaded photon torpedoes hit, all the overloaded phasers hit, the Dragoon's front shield (Shield 1) goes down, and moderate damage occurs to the Dragoon.)

  Sulu:  Enemy ship and fighters firing!

  (7 Hellbore shots arrive.  4 are from the Dragoon and Overloaded, and 2 of those hit.  3 are Regular shots from the fighters, and 2 of those hit.  A vast thermonuclear glow envelops the Enterprise, a cocoon of fusion destruction, imploding onto the ship, the colossal thermonuclear blast heading inward and not outward.
  Half of this incoming blast hits the weakest shield of the Enterprise, it's number 4 rear shield, destroys that shield, and causes minor damage to the Enterprise.   Half of the remaining blast hits the two next weakest shields, numbers 3 and 5, damaging them.  Some of the blast afflicts the front, right front, and left front shields (1, 2, and 6) causing minor damage to them.)

  Sulu:  Sir, shield 4 destroyed, shields 3 and 5 at 50%.
  Spock:  Captain, they are holding their phaser fire.  They are obviously trying to close, as their phasers are shorter ranged than ours.
  Kirk:  High Energy Turn.  Get us out of here.

  (The Enterprise turns.  It speeds away, accelerating as it goes.  The Hydran Dragoon matches it's acceleration, 70,000 kilometers to the rear of the Enterprise.  The Hydran fighters are left behind.)

  Sulu:  Hydran ship firing Phaser-IIs.

  (Minor damage occurs to the Enterprise, as the Phaser-IIs strike at it from  70,000 kilometers, the energy fired through through the downed rear shield (Shield 4))

  (A minute later.)

  Sulu:  Sir, our photons recharged at regular force.  All phasers recharged.
  Kirk:  We could High Energy Turn and fire.  A direct hit will finish them.  Their Hellbores are not re-readied.
  Spock:  Captain, they can turn and put their number 2 or 6 shield to us, and still continue to reload their Hellbores.  At this range, we cannot inflict enough damage to knock their weapons systems out, unless we succeed in firing through their downed Shield 1.
  Kirk:  We have to risk it.  We cannot take another Hellbore blast with Shield 4 down, and we cannot outrun them.  
  Spock:  Captain, a second High Energy Turn could cripple the Enterprise.  The risk is considerable.
  Kirk:  It is a risk we must take.  Sulu, High Speed Turn!

  (The Enterprise pulls it's 2nd High Energy Turn, and survives it.  But the Hydran was expecting this maneuver, and as the Enterprise flips about, the Dragoon turns, angling Shield 2 towards the Enterprise.)

  Kirk:  Fire all weapons!

  (At 70,000 kilometers, 3 of the 4 photons (regular strength) hit, and the phasers score.  The Hydran's number 2 shield disintegrates, and more minor damage is inflicted to the Dragoon.)

  Kirk:  Rats.  Options, Spock?
  Spock:  Another High Speed Turn is likely to wreck the ship, Captain.  We could disable them with Transporter Bombs.
  Kirk:  When they are in range, make it so, Sulu.  Recharge all weapons.
  Sulu:  Yes sir.

  (The Enterprise and the Hydran move towards each other directly now.  At 50,000 kilometers, the Enterprise transports it's 3 bombs out to directly in front of the Hydran.
  The Hydran, detecting the transporter activity and expecting this action, makes it's own High Energy Turn (it's first), and takes the blast damage on it's number 3 shield.  That shield is destroyed, and the Hydran sustains minor damage.)

  Sulu:  Transporter activity from the Hydran.
  Kirk:  Brace!

  (3 bombs go off in front of the Enterprise, knocking down it's front shield (Shield 1))

  Spock:  Captain, at this speed we will close with the Hydran before our weapons are recharged.  Their phasers are at full.
  Kirk:  Emergency Deceleration!

  (The Enterprise stops dead in it's tracks.  The Hydran veers to the right, furiously turning towards the Enterprise, accelerating.)

  Kirk:  Full reverse!
  Sulu:  Sir, the Hydran ship is gaining rapidly.
  Kirk:  What?  They had to go out of their way in the turn!
  Spock:  Captain, their engines were more fully engaged.  They had and have the tactical advantage on speed.
  Kirk:  Can we stay out of their range?
  Spock:  Negative, Captain.  Their Hellbores are already in range.  At this distance, they will do little damage.  But they will come within primary range within 30 seconds.
  Kirk:  Two of their front shields are down.  Are all weapons readied?
  Sulu:  Yes, sir.
  Spock:  Captain, if they fire, we cannot repulse the Hellbores.  
  Kirk:  Yes, but they cannot repulse our fire, either.  Their front shields are down.

  Sulu:  Range to the Hydran Dragoon, 130,000 kilometers.
  Kirk:  Prepare to fire all weapons.
  Sulu:  Range ... 120,000 kilometers.
  Kirk:  Steady, steady ...
  Sulu:  Range ... 111,000 kilometers!
  Spock:  All weapons systems, ours and theirs, in primary range in 30,000 kilometers.
  Sulu:  Range ... 100,000 kilometers!
  Kirk:  Steady ... steady ...
  Everyone Else:  What is he waiting for?!
  Sulu:  Range ... 90,000 kilometers!
  Kirk:  Steady ... steady ... steady ...
  Sulu:  80,000 kilometers!
  Kirk:  Steady ... steady ... steady ...
  Sulu:  70,000 kilometers!
  Kirk:  Steady ... steady ... steady ... steady ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

The United Federation of Planets and the Hydran Galactic Kingdom, fortunately, never went to war against each other.  : )


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> That's *twice* as far, for the Expeditionary Fleet to go, as the Federation Border.
> 
> Just how did you manage it? You had the Klingon Border Fleet (Hydran), the Klingon Southern Fleet, the Klingon Border Fleet (Tholian), and both the Klingon Home Fleet and their Border Fleet (Federation) if they could intercept you.




There were several feints along the borders to occupy the Klingons, who responded to the incursions with overwhelming force.  Incredibly overwhelming, since the invading fleets were missing certain ships, and quickly ran away in seeming defeat.  The Klingons didn't press the issue by following into Hydran space- they thought the missing ships were waiting for them, and the retreating invaders were drawing them into a trap.

The missing ships that normally would have been with the invading forces joined up with with a HUGE Hydran invasion fleet.

By the time they realized what had happened, the Hydran-Tholian alliance had cut off a few hexes of the Klingon Empire.

Mop-up of the forces trapped behind the Alliance fleet was swift.

The loss of resources wasn't crippling, in and of itself, but it significantly increased the Alliance's production...and prompted the Feds to join the party.

We never got to finish the campaign- the F&E board was used to depict force deployment and wins & losses, but we played the battles out in SFB.  That takes _time._  We started after coming home from college, and by the time we had to return to school, nothing had been truly decided.

On our side of the map, the Alliance was holding strong, but couldn't make any advances.  OTOH, the Feds and Klingons were going at it hammer and tongs, with the Klingons taking the brunt of the losses.  (Not only did the Klingons lose territory, resources, ships and face to the Alliance, the Alliance was interdicting trade between the Klingons and the Romulans.)

The Tholian player and I had been talking about how to produce our first joint-tech warships...think about_ that._  But due to the forces of the RW intruding, we were never again able to assemble the full group to play things out.



> And how did you talk the Tholians into helping, once you got there? Even the Federation couldn't convince them to join the war.




First, the Hydrans had to cover the bulk of the distance.

Second, we agreed to split the resources (natural and manufactured) from the captured territory 60H/40T...but the Tholians got to annex the captured space fully under Tholian rule.


----------



## Aeolius

Edena_of_Neith said:


> If that is true, then ... THIS is what D&D must compete with.




a THREAD for you.  

Envision a world where a computer consists of a set of a lightweight head-mounted displays with biofeedback/brainwave detectors, coupled with wireless access everywhere. 

I would add smell-a-vision, but sadly the DigiScents company folded before it could release its prototype iSmell units.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(sighs)

  Why couldn't they make Star Fleet Battles into a full computer game?  Even if only for player on player?

  Everyone thinks the D&D rules argument is big?  The Edition mess is big?
  I'll tell you what's big:  the number of rules in Star Fleet Battles.  How big?  THREE THOUSAND PAGES, IN 6 POINT FONT, BIG.
  Nobody ever did understand all of the rules (including me), and we could only guess at what the rules were.

  Yes, you heard that right:  we had to GUESS at what the rules were.  We did, and we had fun, in spite of it.
  And people complain about the rules in D&D not being exactly this way or that way?  lol ...

  A computer game, would have understood the rules, and required everyone to abide by them, and we at least would have known what we were playing.
  As it was, we were ALL Newbies, ala 0 level players just playing their first couple of D&D games.  And we could never progress much past that, because nobody could understand 3,000 pages of 6 point font rules (especially since they were *constantly* errating them.)


----------



## Derren

Edena_of_Neith said:


> (sighs)
> 
> Why couldn't they make Star Fleet Battles into a full computer game?  Even if only for player on player?




You mean like Starfleet Command 1+2 (and 3, but that is dumbed down)?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Starfleet Command 1 + 2?

  Can you elaborate?


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Starfleet Command 1 + 2?
> 
> Can you elaborate?




Star Trek: Starfleet Command for PC - Star Trek: Starfleet Command PC Game - Star Trek: Starfleet Command Computer Game


----------



## Derren

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Starfleet Command 1 + 2?
> 
> Can you elaborate?




PC strategy games modeled after Starfleet Battle. Mainly its about the direct ship to ship combat in real time. I don't know the TT so I can't say how good the conversion is, but you probably have most tools available (drones, fighters, raids, etc.)
The games also have a strategy hex map where you can move your little fleet around and attack sectors, but in single player that is not very important.

In multiplayer I think there were permanent servers where the empires could wage war against each other and capture sectors. The official servers are offline by now, but some fans created new ones.
Dynaverse.Net Starfleet Command Community

Starfleet Command 3 is a special case. It was dumbed dowm to attract more gamers and doesn't feature much besides shooting at other ships. No drones, transport mines and only 4 shield sections for example.
It also takes place in TNG Star Trek world, specifically after Voyager.

There are Demos for each of those games. Google for them.


----------



## Altalazar

Tried 4E.  Now firmly back in 3.5E, where we will stay indefinitely.  (Talked about this more on my blog).  

Basically, I figure that we ought to at least give it a try and see how it goes.  I was open minded about it.  It ultimatley disappointed everyone.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(muses)

  881 votes, 100 short of the 985 for the first poll.  Still voting.

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  10%

  Those choosing Option 6:  31%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

890 votes.

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  10%

  Those choosing Option 6:  31%

  (need another 100 votes, to get to that 1,000 mark!)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

904 votes, and a slight change in the results:

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  9%

  Those choosing Option 6:  31%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Roughly:

  1 out of 3 of those polled switched over to entirely 4E, or switched over to mostly 4E.
  1 out of 3 of those polled tried 4E, then stopped and returned to earlier editions.
  Somewhere between 1 out of 4, and 1 out of 3, have not yet tried 4E or have refused to try 4E.

  A minority, 1 out of 10, are playing 4E and earlier editions simultaneously.

  EDIT:

  If this poll is, somehow, relevant to the larger picture, then those choosing Option 6 (tried 4E, returned to earlier editions) have made an enormous diference.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Edena_of_Neith said:


> If this poll is, somehow, relevant to the larger picture, then those choosing Option 6 (tried 4E, returned to earlier editions) have made an enormous diference.




Ehh, it's not like ENworlders are the target market-- bunch of older DMs with disposable income who buy multiple books per month, invest their time heavily into the hobby, and actively recruit players.

No relevance to the big picture.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Ehh, it's not like ENworlders are the target market-- bunch of older DMs with disposable income who buy multiple books per month, invest their time heavily into the hobby, and actively recruit players.
> 
> No relevance to the big picture.




  LOL!  Heh.  But ... are we, indeed, the Old Hands?  Is that the majority of ENWorld?
  I really do not know.  (That's a question for Morrus.)

  -

  (off-topic)

  Concerning Star Fleet Battles, thanks for the info.
  I'll skip #3.  I prefer the complexity.

  A favorite of mine was ECM, or Electronic Counter Measures.  And ECCM, or Electronic Counter Counter Measures.

  How would they have appeared in Star Trek, had it been depicted there?

  Federation Captain:  Range?
  Helmsman:  90,000 kilometers.
  Captain:  At 80,000, fire all weapons.
  Science Officer:  Captain, they are using ECM.
  Captain:  Fire anyways.
  Helmsman:  Yes sir.

  (But the Klingon ship had deployed 6 points of power (the equivalent of a fifth of it's total warp output) to ECM, jamming the Federation ship's sensors and downgrading it's lock-on.
  The 4 overloaded photon torpedoes, are fired.  3 would have hit, but only 1 does now.  The phaser fire from the heavy Phaser-Is is badly degraded, and does far less damage.)

  Science officer:  Enemy front shield still at 20% (Shield 1), enemy ship weapons at full, all our weapons fired.  The enemy ship is launching drones (thermonuclear missiles that travel at translight speed.)

  Captain:  We are in trouble.

  (on the Klingon ship, where there is general cheering.)

  Klingon Captain:  They are in trouble.  When we achieve our victory, our science officer is in for a decoration and a promotion.  (As am I ...)


----------



## Yair

I am surprised at the high numbers rejecting 4e - about two thirds, really, half after an experience with it. That's a lot. Considering that many older-D&D players probably don't frequent this forum, I think those numbers are underrepresenting the people who did not adopt 4e in the original (pre-4E) ENWorld community, too.

I don't think they represent the general public at all, but still it's an interesting data point to bear in mind.

I'm one of those who voted they left 4e for 'earlier versions', although in truth I left for other games. It was the closest option available.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

916 votes, and we have another adjustment in the results:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  10%

  Option 6:  31%

  I sincerely hope the results of this poll are not accurate, because if they are, I'm afraid Hasbro will take the rights to D&D, lock them up, and thus we'll see D&D go the way of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.  Obviously, I do not want that.

  But there it is.

  Only 1 out of 3 of the poll respondants are entirely or mostly going with 4E.
  2 out of 3 either are not, have tried 4E and gone back to earlier editions, or are playing both 4E and earlier editions.

  Notably, this last group, those playing both 4E and earlier editions, is small.  It is only 10% of poll respondents.
  It would appear that people either play 4E or earlier editions.  There really isn't much of a 'let's play both' attitude.  At least, not in this poll.  
  For 9 out of 10, it's one of the other, but not both 4E and earlier editions.

  If 2 out of 3 people are refusing to go with 4E, if this poll is accurate, then Hasbro has suffered a colossal loss of it's base from the game it supports.  I cannot see them taking no action, not with results of this magnitude.

  Just my opinion.  I hope my poll is inaccurate.

  (And yes, some people have left the hobby since the inception of 4E.  I am aware of that.  Somewhere, it would seem, between 1% and 5% of all polled ... that is, had that option been in this poll, somewhere between 1% and 5% would have voted for it.
  This aggravates things further.  You have to add that to the No Changeover vote, since obviously they did not change over to 4E.  They no longer play D&D at all.)

  (sighs)


----------



## DaveMage

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I sincerely hope the results of this poll are not accurate, because if they are, I'm afraid Hasbro will take the rights to D&D, lock them up, and thus we'll see D&D go the way of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.  Obviously, I do not want that.





They'd probably license it out rather than lock it up.  Some income is better than no income from the brand, eh?

It's Hasbro.  It's about the money.


----------



## Aeolius

Edena_of_Neith said:


> If 2 out of 3 people are refusing to go with 4E, if this poll is accurate, then Hasbro has suffered a colossal loss of it's base from the game it supports.  I cannot see them taking no action, not with results of this magnitude.




It was my impression that WotC didn't care about the established fan base. They chose to "fire" their former customers, in the process of looking for a fresh market.


----------



## garyh

Aeolius said:


> It was my impression that WotC didn't care about the established fan base. They chose to "fire" their former customers, in the process of looking for a fresh market.




I don't think that's quite the case.  I think it's more that they realized ANY change was going to result in some folks not changing along with them, so they focused on maximizing new players as oppossed to minimizing old players who refuse to convert.  It's not like it was ever going to be possible to release a new edition that completely won over the existing player base.


----------



## Scribble

I wonder what a changover poll from 1e - 2e would have looked like in a similar time frame?


----------



## bouncyhead

Edena_of_Neith said:


> 916 votes, and we have another adjustment in the results:
> 
> Changeover:  32%
> No Changeover:  58%
> Partial Changeover:  10%
> 
> Option 6:  31%
> 
> I sincerely hope the results of this poll are not accurate, because if they are, I'm afraid Hasbro will take the rights to D&D, lock them up, and thus we'll see D&D go the way of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.  Obviously, I do not want that.
> 
> But there it is.
> 
> Only 1 out of 3 of the poll respondants are entirely or mostly going with 4E.
> 2 out of 3 either are not, have tried 4E and gone back to earlier editions, or are playing both 4E and earlier editions.
> 
> Notably, this last group, those playing both 4E and earlier editions, is small.  It is only 10% of poll respondents.
> It would appear that people either play 4E or earlier editions.  There really isn't much of a 'let's play both' attitude.  At least, not in this poll.
> For 9 out of 10, it's one of the other, but not both 4E and earlier editions.
> 
> If 2 out of 3 people are refusing to go with 4E, if this poll is accurate, then Hasbro has suffered a colossal loss of it's base from the game it supports.  I cannot see them taking no action, not with results of this magnitude.
> 
> Just my opinion.  I hope my poll is inaccurate.
> 
> (And yes, some people have left the hobby since the inception of 4E.  I am aware of that.  Somewhere, it would seem, between 1% and 5% of all polled ... that is, had that option been in this poll, somewhere between 1% and 5% would have voted for it.
> This aggravates things further.  You have to add that to the No Changeover vote, since obviously they did not change over to 4E.  They no longer play D&D at all.)
> 
> (sighs)




It's quite scary. I guess the clincher for WotC/Hasbro will be sales of the second round of core books.

This could be a tragedy for D&D. Its viability depended on a large, unified base. They are paying the price for making the system open with 3.x. Hitherto there had been no real alternative (if one wanted to stay on the train) to switching editions but 4E had to be BETTER to make people switch, not just newer.


----------



## cildarith

Scribble said:


> I wonder what a changover poll from 1e - 2e would have looked like in a similar time frame?




I've never seen actual numbers, but the anecdotal evidence I've always heard is that 2E cost D&D approximately 50% of its audience at the time.  In retrospect the rules changes between 1E-2E seem almost trivial, so I'm not terribly surprised by these results.


----------



## Scribble

cildarith said:


> I've never seen actual numbers, but the anecdotal evidence I've always heard is that 2E cost D&D approximately 50% of its audience at the time.  In retrospect the rules changes between 1E-2E seem almost trivial, so I'm not terribly surprised by these results.




Which seems weird... Because I remember going to lots of cons back in what I guess was the height of 2e, and the games were mainly 2e with a few 1e games every so often... (We called them the old guys... )


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I sincerely hope the results of this poll are not accurate, because if they are, I'm afraid Hasbro will take the rights to D&D, lock them up, and thus we'll see D&D go the way of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.  Obviously, I do not want that.




By this poll that would only effect 1/3 of the players, which are the 4E players. 3E and previous edition  players already have no official support. For those sticking with 3.x there is the OGL which means that Hasbro can't entirely lock D&D away.


----------



## Zil

Edena_of_Neith said:


> If 2 out of 3 people are refusing to go with 4E, if this poll is accurate, then Hasbro has suffered a colossal loss of it's base from the game it supports.  I cannot see them taking no action, not with results of this magnitude.




I'm really curious how this compares with the transition from 1E to 2E and then the transition from 2E to 3E.  I know that from my own experience from the previous transitions that this time it certainly seems very different.

Back with 1E to 2E, most of the crowd I gamed with it dismissed it as a money grab and there were a number of grumblings about dropping things like the assassin, removing the "demon" and "devil" names, etc.  Around that same time I moved away to grad school and gravitated elsewhere (Muds) for a long stretch.  When I eventually came back to D&D in 1993, I worked with an odd mesh of OD&D, 1E and some 2E rules I had picked up for firearms and psionics.  Eventually I migrated my campaigns mostly to 2E because after giving the rules a more serious look I decided that things seemed to be cleaned up so it wasn't just a money grab.  I actually see the 2E days as the high point of D&D.  Even though 3E proved to be a much better system from a mechanics point of view, I just loved all the campaign settings that TSR put out, especially the more grown up ones like Planescape with its philosophers with clubs arguing about the nature of existence.

Then along came 2.5 (Combat & Tactics, Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic).  We switched right away to this and rode it through the end of TSR and beyond.  

Then came 3E.  We switched right away again.  3E was the only game in town and again it seemed like a huge improvement on the game although we did have some reservations about the more rapid rise in levels compared with previous versions.   

We again switched right away to 3.5.  There were a few things we've had to houserule since that switch, but otherwise we were happy to make the switch.  

And then came 4E and it fell completely flat.  We tried it, we played through a few levels and decided it's simply not something we want to use for our "serious" games.  In fact, it's fallen completely off the table and radar.   Instead we've started playtesting Pathfinder and we're much happier.  It's not like the 2E days when we initially dismissed 2E as being a money-grab.  We didn't have a problem with how 2E played - it just didn't seem like there was enough of an improvement to justify the version.  It felt more like 1.5 then a full edition upgrade.

So 4E is the first version where our group has seriously balked over changes to mechanics and the tone of the game.  I guess we're not the only group. Will we eventually change our minds (heck, it took me more than 4 years to make the 1E to 2E transition)?  I'm doubtful.  This time we have more options available thanks to the OGL and now Pathfinder so it looks less likely that we'll eventually make the transition to 4E.

What does this mean for WoTC and D&D?  I don't know.  EnWorld is probably not completely representative of the D&D audience.  People here tend to be 
DMs and/or serious players who are more immersed in the hobby.  In my case, they're losing someone who spends a lot on the hobby.   On our gaming shelves we have most of the D&D product lines from TSR and WoTC from 1E through the end of 3.5.  It can't be good for WoTC to lose too many people like us.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:


> It's Hasbro.  It's about the money.




What else _should _it be about? Seriously. 

Altruism?



bouncyhead said:


> They are paying the price for making the system open with 3.x.




I rather think of it as paying the price for trying to close 4e. They went so far afield from 3e that it was inevitable they would end up competing with it.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I rather think of it as paying the price for trying to close 4e. They went so far afield from 3e that it was inevitable they would end up competing with it.




I don't think what they did is any further then many of the other "alternate" D20 systems out there. Like Iron Heros or Arcana Unearthed, etc...  

You can still make stuff for 4e using the OGL, you just can't use any of the IP parts. 

You CAN use the IP with the GSL, which I'd say is a bit more open then the above games... 

But I would generally agree I think one of their biggest issues is the GSL, and people fearing the GSL and what it meant. (Whether that fear is warrented or not is another discussion.)

I think part of the proplem is that GSL supports products directly for D&D and nothing else... And a lot of companies had already left this model in favor of their own alternate system ideas. 

Shrug. I think it'll work itself out.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> But I would generally agree I think one of their biggest issues is the GSL, and people fearing the GSL and what it meant. (Whether that fear is warrented or not is another discussion.)




It's not about the GSL, it's about the fact that the game mechanics and game IP are a radical departure from 3e. 

If the GSL were perfect and released on time, it wouldn't change the fact that "4e doesn't feel like D&D."

You can't possibly attribute the "Tried it, changed back..." crowd to the GSL situation. Come on.


----------



## DaveMage

Wulf Ratbane said:


> What else _should _it be about? Seriously.
> 
> Altruism?




Do *you* do it for the money?

Edit - But, from Hasbro's point of view - yeah, it should be.  (That's why I want D&D separated from them.)


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It's not about the GSL, it's about the fact that the game mechanics and game IP are a radical departure from 3e.
> 
> If the GSL were perfect and released on time, it wouldn't change the fact that "4e doesn't feel like D&D."




That's subjective. To me it does feel like D&D. Maybe because I like 4e I see more fo the similarities and the path the game took to get where it is then you do? I dunno.



> You can't possibly attribute the "Tried it, changed back..." crowd to the GSL situation. Come on.




Not all of it sure, but I can contribute a good part of it to GSL in the lack of a lot of 3rd party support. One thing 3rd party support did for 3e was fill in parts that people felt were lacking giving them more incentive to switch.

Missing that 1st edition feel? Necromancer is here for you pal!

Not enough spells yet to please you? Random 3rd party company has a boatload of em!

I think if the GSL had managed to attract more 3rd party players, I think they would have been quickly jumping at the chance to fill in the "gaps" people were claiming they had issues with in 4e. Those gaps being filled probably would have tempted a lot more people to stay. (And still could if they get the GSL into an attractive state...)

But I could be completely wrong, what do I know?


----------



## Sammael

I can only speek for myself, but no amount of 3rd party support would have made me accept powers and healing surges. Or class roles. Or the way magic items are done. Or core tieflings and dragonborn. The list goes on and on, because I can rationally summarize why 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me. Basically, to win me over, a 3rd party supplement would have to change about 50% of the game or more - so why bother?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:


> Do *you* do it for the money?




Wait a second. I was supposed to make money at this? 

But seriously... If I had employees and shareholders? Yeah, money would inform my decisions.



Scribble said:


> That's subjective. To me it does feel like D&D.




Doesn't matter what it feels like to you. We've all hashed out that argument already. 

What matters is what it feels like to the 2/3 of the people who didn't switch.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Doesn't matter what it feels like to you. We've all hashed out that argument already.
> 
> What matters is what it feels like to the 2/3 of the people who didn't switch.




Yeah but I can't agree that with the 2/3 of the people who didn't switch it was because it doesn't feel like D&D to them.

I'm sure for some that's the case. I'm also sure for others it's not. The poll doesn't say one way or the other. (Except for those who specifically make a point to mention why they voted one way or another.)

As for the amount switched. I'm sure WoTC would have LOVED for everyone or a majority of everyone to have switched over already, but I'm not really sure if the amount switched so far is really bad or unexpected.

And that question can't really be answered by anyone other then WoTC.


----------



## Wicht

Sammael said:


> Basically, to win me over, a 3rd party supplement would have to change about 50% of the game or more - so why bother?




That right there is what has kept me from even buying the books.  Every complaint I had about the 4e rules system was met with cries of "houserule it."  But by the time I made a list of all the things I was being told I would have to house rule, I realized that if I have to completely rewrite the system then why not just stick with a system where on a bad day I feel like changing maybe 5-10% max and on a good day I can play it as is.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> I'm sure for some that's the case. I'm also sure for others it's not.




I didn't say that 2/3 of the people didn't switch because 4e "didn't feel like D&D" to them.

I said it doesn't matter what you think about 4e, because you're in the switched over crowd. You're not remarkable-- except that you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by people whose thoughts on the matter, uh, matter.

I'm _quite _confident that the overwhelming majority of that 2/3 falls under my original point, "4e is too radical a departure from 3e."


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

926 votes, and it's still:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  10%

  Option 6:  31%

  It's been that, or 1% to 2% either way of that, for the last *500* votes.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm _quite _confident that the overwhelming majority of that 2/3 falls under my original point, "4e is too radical a departure from 3e."




Maybe maybe not. I can't answer that one with any kind of valid acuracy.

I still stand behind my idea that if the GSL had been more attractive or lenient or accepted by 3rd party people, the too radical of a change might not have been as large.

I also think that with 3rd party support, would come more avenues of interesting ideas, which would bring more changeover despite the fact that the change was radical.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> I still stand behind my idea that if the GSL had been more attractive or lenient or accepted by 3rd party people, the too radical of a change might not have been as large.




I guess I fail to see how the GSL could address the fact that the changes were too radical.

Other than permitting a rollback.

Maybe you can explain a bit better by starting with your definition of "radical changes." 

My definition includes _both _mechanics changes and IP changes.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I guess I fail to see how the GSL could address the fact that the changes were too radical.
> 
> Other than permitting a rollback.
> 
> Maybe you can explain a bit better by starting with your definition of "radical changes."
> 
> My definition includes _both _mechanics changes and IP changes.





Well so does mine. I'm not sure I can give you a concrete definition, because I think it's somewhat subjective. (Well maybe not the idea of radical change, but the acceptability of such change?)

But lets say a change like ditching skills like "craft."

Had the GSL been more accepted, you don't think there would have been some big names in there itching to put forth a new crafting system for people?

I'm not ignorant enough to say this would have solved everyone's problems, but I'm sure it would have helped.

Plus sometimes if people are making cool ideas for something, then it just makes people want to use the new idea despite the radical differences. 

I think like it or not a lot of people are influenced by the actions of the "big names." If they aren't moving forward with the system because of the GSL, it doesn't matter if they still think the system is good or not, people only see that they're not moving forward with the new system.

I think if they did accept the GSL, and moved forward with producing stuff, more people would be switching. (Even if it's a subconcious sort of thing.)

Whehther or not this was anticipated by WoTC? I can't answer. Well I have thoughts, but I can't answer with authority.


----------



## Sammael

Eh, Craft is not, in my opinion, anywhere near a big change. It's extremely easy to put back. 

Radical changes, IMO, include stuff like "all classes have mystical powers," "wizards are completely nerfed," "half the Forgotten Realms is gone," "what Great Wheel," "everyone can heal themselves automagically," "every class feature has to deal damage, even the ones that buff, heal, or create illusions," "a race of demonically cursed humanoids is now core - horned dudes are everywhere; oh yeah, so are the anthro lizards," "heavens forbid that a spellcaster should actually pick up a crossbow somtimes..." and so on.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Wait a second. I was supposed to make money at this?
> 
> But seriously... If I had employees and shareholders? Yeah, money would inform my decisions.




That is why some people want it sold. With a publicly traded company like Hasbro making money for shareholders is required. If it was sold to a private company there is no requirement to make as much as possible. If the owner of a private company is happy just breaking even then that is fine.


----------



## Scribble

Sammael said:


> Eh, Craft is not, in my opinion, anywhere near a big change. It's extremely easy to put back.
> 
> Radical changes, IMO, include stuff like "all classes have mystical powers," "wizards are completely nerfed," "half the Forgotten Realms is gone," "what Great Wheel," "everyone can heal themselves automagically," "every class feature has to deal damage, even the ones that buff, heal, or create illusions," "a race of demonically cursed humanoids is now core - horned dudes are everywhere; oh yeah, so are the anthro lizards," "heavens forbid that a spellcaster should actually pick up a crossbow somtimes..." and so on.




Yeah craft was just the first thing that came to mind. But my point stil remains the same.

Had the GSL been more accepted, I think there would have been more people playing around with those areas people had issues with, and I think it would have done a lot to get more people on board.

Again, I will not say it would have done it for everyone, but I feel it would have done a lot to help.


----------



## Gothmog

Wicht said:


> That right there is what has kept me from even buying the books.  Every complaint I had about the 4e rules system was met with cries of "houserule it."  But by the time I made a list of all the things I was being told I would have to house rule, I realized that if I have to completely rewrite the system then why not just stick with a system where on a bad day I feel like changing maybe 5-10% max and on a good day I can play it as is.




Its ironic that when I brought up many of the problems I had with 3.x D&D three years ago, I was told the same thing..."houserule it- D&D 3.x can handle anything."  My list of houserules to "fix" 3.x was over 50 pages long, and even then it didn't address every problem since some were built into the game and mathematical progression of the system, and a suitable overhaul would have required a complete rewrite of the game (basically what 4e did).  In the end, we quit 3.x and went and played WHFRP2 or AD&D 2e for our fantasy until 4e came out.  4e is giving me and my group what we want from our D&D play, with just TWO pages of houserules (mostly involving healing and long-term injuries, and alternative uses of Action Points).  No one system can handle every playstyle or is perfect for everybody- not even the almighty 3.x.


----------



## DaveMage

Gothmog said:


> Its ironic that when I brought up many of the problems I had with 3.x D&D three years ago, I was told the same thing..."houserule it- D&D 3.x can handle anything."  My list of houserules to "fix" 3.x was over 50 pages long, and even then it didn't address every problem since some were built into the game and mathematical progression of the system, and a suitable overhaul would have required a complete rewrite of the game (basically what 4e did).  In the end, we quit 3.x and went and played WHFRP2 or AD&D 2e for our fantasy until 4e came out.  4e is giving me and my group what we want from our D&D play, with just TWO pages of houserules (mostly involving healing and long-term injuries, and alternative uses of Action Points).  No one system can handle every playstyle or is perfect for everybody- not even the almighty 3.x.




Interesting.

The size of my houserules for 3.x: 0 pages.


----------



## Gothmog

DaveMage said:


> Interesting.
> 
> The size of my houserules for 3.x: 0 pages.




Yep, just goes to show you that different folks have different goals, tastes, and playstyles, and NO system can handle what everbody likes.  Which is why its good we have a variety of games.


----------



## DaveMage

Gothmog said:


> Yep, just goes to show you that different folks have different goals, tastes, and playstyles, and NO system can handle what everbody likes.  Which is why its good we have a variety of games.




No doubt.

I'm surprised you had the patience to stick with 3.x once the house rules started mounting so much.  I don't think I would have.


----------



## Gothmog

DaveMage said:


> No doubt.
> 
> I'm surprised you had the patience to stick with 3.x once the house rules started mounting so much.  I don't think I would have.




At the time, two of my players really liked 3.x, so I figured I'd try to tough it out.  We like lower magic/gritty fantasy games with more human(ish) classed opponents, which is something we found 3.x didn't do well with.  Our main issues were with the cosmology, the ease and accessibility of magic (my group always liked magic as dangerous and risky, requiring casting rolls and having critical failure results), different traditions of magic based on culture, magical materials to be used for casting spells/item creation, ritual magic, combat maneuvers for non-magical classes (similar to 4e powers), defensive bonuses to AC that scaled with level and class (which also had to be applied to monster ACs), long-term injury and healing, etc.  We tried with our collectively written houserules for about a year, but in the end, it just wasn't a satisfying play experience.  D&D 4e addressed most of those issues, and fits our tastes and playstyle a lot better.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scribble said:


> Had the GSL been more accepted, I think there would have been more people playing around with those areas people had issues with, and I think it would have done a lot to get more people on board.




Exactly. A rollback.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Brown Jenkin said:


> If it was sold to a private company there is no requirement to make as much as possible. If the owner of a private company is happy just breaking even then that is fine.




Uh huh.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Real life issues slowed down our Midwood campaigns, so we haven't even come close to the potential changeover event (the Night of Dissolution). As a result, I haven't even finished reading the 4E corebooks, although I'll do so this spring and make a determination when the campaigns wind to a close this year.

We had one person who was violently opposed to 4E when it came out, but given how much important serious real stuff has happened in all our lives, I suspect everyone will go along with majority rule (whichever way it goes; it's hard to guess at this point, months out) without much argument now.


----------



## Scribble

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Exactly. A rollback.




Shrug, maybe? Maybe not? 

Maybe something that fills the gap but in a 4e way. A lot of stuff like that happened in 3e with 3pp. 

Like with the craft skill:

My idea would be to not just add it as a skill in the list, but to add it as a feat/instructions combo like alchemy or rituals. 

Same idea (my dude can make stuff!) but with a 4e like spin.


----------



## Scribble

Brown Jenkin said:


> That is why some people want it sold. With a publicly traded company like Hasbro making money for shareholders is required. If it was sold to a private company there is no requirement to make as much as possible. If the owner of a private company is happy just breaking even then that is fine.




I have a couple of issues with this thought process:

1. It seems to assume that WoTC has the power to force people to buy things. They're a company that produces luxury items. They have to produce soemthing people want to buy before the people will buy it. "requirement to make money" or not.

2. It seems to assume assumes the owner just breaking even somehow implies he's making a better game. What if:

A: He's just not able to produce enough of what the players want to do more then break even.

B: He's breaking even because for the most part his products suck.


----------



## El Mahdi

Scribble said:


> ...
> 
> A: He's just not able to produce enough of what the players want to do more then break even.
> 
> B: He's breaking even because for the most part his products suck.




Sounds like _Palladium_!


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scribble said:


> I have a couple of issues with this thought process:
> 
> 1. It seems to assume that WoTC has the power to force people to buy things. They're a company that produces luxury items. They have to produce soemthing people want to buy before the people will buy it. "requirement to make money" or not.




Their purpose is to make money. Making things that will make the most money is the point. There are all sorts of ways to do this from making things that people want to marketing things so that people think they want them even if they don't. The end result though is still to make as much as possible. If WotC thought they could make more money by only making 5 physical books and sell them for $5 million each they would regardless of whether more than 5 people wanted the books. A private company can make the choice to take the less profitable rout if they want to.



Scribble said:


> 2. It seems to assume assumes the owner just breaking even somehow implies he's making a better game.




No it doesn't assume that. It just gives the owner more choices about what direction he wants to take. The new owner can make the choice based on his own opinions of what he thinks is a better game rather than what will make the most money. WotC may have made the best game, but their choices are required to go the route that makes the most money whether or not it is the better game.



Scribble said:


> What if:
> A: He's just not able to produce enough of what the players want to do more then break even.




Sure its possible, but private doesn't neccesarily mean small or undercapitalized. Private companies can be worth millions or even billions. 



Scribble said:


> B: He's breaking even because for the most part his products suck.




Well so be it. But having sucky products doesn't mean that they are produced by a private company. Public companies can make sucky products too.

or

C: He makes a a product he likes better even though he knows he may not make as much (or any) money. If you agree with him great, if you don't then that is fine too.


----------



## bouncyhead

Scribble said:


> Maybe maybe not. I can't answer that one with any kind of valid acuracy.
> 
> I still stand behind my idea that if the GSL had been more attractive or lenient or accepted by 3rd party people, the too radical of a change might not have been as large.
> 
> I also think that with 3rd party support, would come more avenues of interesting ideas, which would bring more changeover despite the fact that the change was radical.




Perhaps we should run a 'why didn't you switch/why did you switch back? poll'. I appreciate that all this is anecdotal but for my tuppence worth, my decision to switch back to 3.5 was based on the 'feel' thing. If I had to justify this with crunch it would be that I don't like powers, the consequent re-working of spell-casting, the increased significance of the encounter, the 'rationalisation' of classes. No amount of houseruling or 3pp crunch would fix or replace these without the game not being 4e at all.


----------



## Mark Hope

bouncyhead said:


> Perhaps we should run a 'why didn't you switch/why did you switch back? poll'. I appreciate that all this is anecdotal but for my tuppence worth, my decision to switch back to 3.5 was based on the 'feel' thing. If I had to justify this with crunch it would be that I don't like powers, the consequent re-working of spell-casting, the increased significance of the encounter, the 'rationalisation' of classes. No amount of houseruling or 3pp crunch would fix or replace these without the game not being 4e at all.




That might be interesting if you could find a way to consolidate it into a poll with a manageable number of options that represent the various reasons why someone might not have switched or might have switched back.  It would also be impressive if such a thread could remain flame-free .

I know that in my case, not switching to 4e had almost nothing to do with 4e at all.  I haven't even read the books.  I'm just happy with what I have.  For me, the question was not "why didn't you switch?" but more "why should I?"  Any poll would need to be able to cover all the bases.  You could keep the categories broad, I suppose, rather than have a dozen specific one, but good wording would be a must.


----------



## bouncyhead

Mark Hope said:


> That might be interesting if you could find a way to consolidate it into a poll with a manageable number of options that represent the various reasons why someone might not have switched or might have switched back.  It would also be impressive if such a thread could remain flame-free .




You said it. Could be a bloodbath  We would probably need a pre-poll poll just to agree on the options.



Mark Hope said:


> I know that in my case, not switching to 4e had almost nothing to do with 4e at all.  I haven't even read the books.  I'm just happy with what I have.  For me, the question was not "why didn't you switch?" but more "why should I?"  Any poll would need to be able to cover all the bases.  You could keep the categories broad, I suppose, rather than have a dozen specific one, but good wording would be a must.




I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we switched without a moment's thought. It took a while before we realized how fundamentally the new mechanics had altered the feel, and a while longer before we switched back.


----------



## Mark Hope

bouncyhead said:


> I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we switched without a moment's thought. It took a while before we realized how fundamentally the new mechanics had altered the feel, and a while longer before we switched back.




Well, I did look at the previews that were coming out (mainly through Enworld's news page) and took the approach "OK, you have a new edition coming out - sell it to me!"  To date, that hasn't happened.  That likely has as much to do with my personal preferences as it has to do with the nature of 4e, of course.

So long as we're all getting good gaming, though, it doesn't really matter what edition we're playing.  To be honest, I quite like the fact that the gaming community is split.  It reminds me of the days when I started gaming, when there were dozens of games within any given genre, all competing, joslting and cross-pollinating with one anothe.  The more the merrier, I say.


----------



## bouncyhead

Mark Hope said:


> So long as we're all getting good gaming, though, it doesn't really matter what edition we're playing.  To be honest, I quite like the fact that the gaming community is split.  It reminds me of the days when I started gaming, when there were dozens of games within any given genre, all competing, joslting and cross-pollinating with one anothe.  The more the merrier, I say.




Spot on.


----------



## Tuft

bouncyhead said:


> I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we switched without a moment's thought. It took a while before we realized how fundamentally the new mechanics had altered the feel, and a while longer before we switched back.




I think the "bought the books, did read them, did not like what I read, did not start playing" people chose option seven.

"Tried" implies actual, more than one session play, IMHO.


----------



## Sammael

A lot of people bought the gift set dirt cheap from Amazon. I am convinced that Amazon was selling those at a loss, particularly to international customers (due to low shipping costs).


----------



## bouncyhead

Tuft said:


> I think the "bought the books, did read them, did not like what I read, did not start playing" people chose option seven.
> 
> "Tried" implies actual, more than one session play, IMHO.




Of course, good point.

Any suggestions for a 'why have you not switched?' poll?

Off the top of my head:

1 GSL/Lack of 3rd party support.
2 Tried it. Too radical a change from 3.x.
3 Tried it. No problem with radical change per se but I just don't like the new rules
4 Tried it. Don't know why, but it doesn't feel like D&D.
5 Tried it - looks OK to me but not better so why switch?
6 Tried it - looks good to me but I have too much invested in 3.x.
7 Haven't tried it. Happy with 3.x, didn't buy the books.
8 It took me four years to switch from 2 to 3. Give me some time.
9 Doesn't matter how good it is, I just hate WotC/Hasbro/giving my money to the man, man.
10 There's a 4E? Sorry, I've been living in a cave.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

951 votes, and a slight change:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  59%
  Partial Changeover:  9%

  Option 6:  31%


----------



## Wicht

bouncyhead said:


> Of course, good point.
> 
> Any suggestions for a 'why have you not switched?' poll?
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> 1 GSL/Lack of 3rd party support.
> 2 Tried it. Too radical a change from 3.x.
> 3 Tried it. No problem with radical change per se but I just don't like the new rules
> 4 Tried it. Don't know why, but it doesn't feel like D&D.
> 5 Tried it - looks OK to me but not better so why switch?
> 6 Tried it - looks good to me but I have too much invested in 3.x.
> 7 Haven't tried it. Happy with 3.x, didn't buy the books.
> 8 It took me four years to switch from 2 to 3. Give me some time.
> 9 Doesn't matter how good it is, I just hate WotC/Hasbro/giving my money to the man, man.
> 10 There's a 4E? Sorry, I've been living in a cave.





I would be interested in this poll myself.
But some Suggestions...

Tried/haven't tried - felt insulted by the pre-release marketing
Haven't tried it - too many sacred cows slaughtered (I would probably choose this one myself)


----------



## bouncyhead

Wicht said:


> I would be interested in this poll myself.
> But some Suggestions...
> 
> Tried/haven't tried - felt insulted by the pre-release marketing
> Haven't tried it - too many sacred cows slaughtered (I would probably choose this one myself)




The danger is that it would become a 'let's kick 4E around the block' thread and that gets nobody anywhere. If it could stay bicker-free though it would make very interesting reading.


----------



## Wicht

bouncyhead said:


> The danger is that it would become a 'let's kick 4E around the block' thread and that gets nobody anywhere. If it could stay bicker-free though it would make very interesting reading.




It's hard to for a soul to say why they are not playing a system without criticizing that system.  The real danger is in the pro-4e crowd trying to argue against the reasoning of the anti-4e crowd.  As soon as that happens, there probably would be bickering.  (Though to be fair, if there was a pro-4e thread and an anti-4e person entered to argue about why they did not like the system it would be just as bad.)  If the thread stated at the beginning though that the thread is not open to disputation regarding anyone's opinion then it might avoid the problem.


----------



## Garnfellow

bouncyhead said:


> Of course, good point.
> 
> Any suggestions for a 'why have you not switched?' poll?
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> 1 GSL/Lack of 3rd party support.
> 2 Tried it. Too radical a change from 3.x.
> 3 Tried it. No problem with radical change per se but I just don't like the new rules
> 4 Tried it. Don't know why, but it doesn't feel like D&D.
> 5 Tried it - looks OK to me but not better so why switch?
> 6 Tried it - looks good to me but I have too much invested in 3.x.
> 7 Haven't tried it. Happy with 3.x, didn't buy the books.
> 8 It took me four years to switch from 2 to 3. Give me some time.
> 9 Doesn't matter how good it is, I just hate WotC/Hasbro/giving my money to the man, man.
> 10 There's a 4E? Sorry, I've been living in a cave.



If you make a poll, make sure you allow for multiple responses, because no 1 reason really fits for me. It's the cumulative effect of a bunch of things -- inlcuing 1, 2, and 5.


----------



## sword3274

Wicht said:


> It's hard to for a soul to say why they are not playing a system without criticizing that system. The real danger is in the pro-4e crowd trying to argue against the reasoning of the anti-4e crowd. As soon as that happens, there probably would be bickering. (Though to be fair, if there was a pro-4e thread and an anti-4e person entered to argue about why they did not like the system it would be just as bad.) If the thread stated at the beginning though that the thread is not open to disputation regarding anyone's opinion then it might avoid the problem.




I totally agree with this. Until the one side can truly accept the other sides complaints - whether they agree with them or not - there will be no civilized discussion on the merits and flaws of 4e and 3e. At least not among both parties simultaneously. No one wants to be told that the reasons they don't like a particular system are "stupid" or they don't know what they are talking about. no one wants their input in a discussion to be piled on, or even to be edited or deleted just becuase a moderator doesn't share the posters opinion.

Sadly, I fear many people can't get past their own feelings and opinions to not only see but also respect how others honestly feel about this. That isn't meant to be a knock against anyone specifically (or not) or anything to incite a riot - it's just human nature. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time accepting other viewpoints when I think mine is "right" (just ask my wife). If we do not perceive our own thoughts and feelings on a particular topic to be the most valid, we (at the very least) deem others opinions as less valid. And after this much time, I certain that gap cannot be bridged. It would be wonderful if it were possible, but human nature dictates it cannot, at least not in an internet forum...more's the pity. I have yet to be able to enter a civilied discussion on the merits and flaws of 4e (and 3e) before degrades into a mire of insults.






> Changeover: 32%
> No Changeover: 59%
> Partial Changeover: 9%




I think, after all this time, these numbers are rather fascinating.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Such a poll will be next to useless.

Slightly less useless if you make the votes public.


----------



## bouncyhead

sword3274 said:


> I have yet to be able to enter a civilied discussion on the merits and flaws of 4e (and 3e) before degrades into a mire of insults.




It's a shame. There are several interesting concepts in 4E - for me anyway. The measures to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day for one, + a host of specific rules ( e.g. simpler crits, 'bloodied', easy-to-run monsters with interesting attacks, passive perception ). Some of them we've HR'd into our Pathfinder Beta game. If nothing else, 4E shows that the developers correctly identified some mechanical/gameplay issues with 3.x that were worthy of attention, even if they addressed them with solutions that don't suit my personal taste.


----------



## sword3274

bouncyhead said:


> It's a shame. There are several interesting concepts in 4E - for me anyway. The measures to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day for one, + a host of specific rules ( e.g. simpler crits, 'bloodied', easy-to-run monsters with interesting attacks, passive perception ). Some of them we've HR'd into our Pathfinder Beta game. If nothing else, 4E shows that the developers correctly identified some mechanical/gameplay issues with 3.x that were worthy of attention, even if they addressed them with solutions that don't suit my personal taste.




Agreed, it is a shame.  One thing I've taken, for example, is the 1 hp "minion" concept.  I'm also intrigued by the way the cosmology is laid out.  I have to disagree with you if you are implying that 3.x had a "15 minute workday problem" - that, in my most humble opinion, has never been a game problem but rather a player issue.

But your post is a good example, with its sturcture and tone, of a non-inflammatory post that would be a welcome contribution to a peaceful pro/con edition discussion.


----------



## Scribble

Brown Jenkin said:


> Their purpose is to make money. Making things that will make the most money is the point. There are all sorts of ways to do this from making things that people want to marketing things so that people think they want them even if they don't. The end result though is still to make as much as possible. If WotC thought they could make more money by only making 5 physical books and sell them for $5 million each they would regardless of whether more than 5 people wanted the books. A private company can make the choice to take the less profitable rout if they want to.




See I guess we just have differing views of corporate vrs non-corporate business. Sure, any business is designed to make money. Doesn't matter if it's corporate or not. Just because it's corporate doesn't mean it's designed to trick you into buying a crummy product.

I also think we have a differing view of sales/advertising... I don't believe you can make anyone buy something they don't actualy want to buy. (Well at least not without a gun or soemthing...)

And again I don't think there's a difference anyway. Just because it's private or corporate. 




> No it doesn't assume that. It just gives the owner more choices about what direction he wants to take. The new owner can make the choice based on his own opinions of what he thinks is a better game rather than what will make the most money. WotC may have made the best game, but their choices are required to go the route that makes the most money whether or not it is the better game.




What I'm questioning is what defines "better game." 

If more people are buying it, doesn't it stand to reason more people are liking it, and therefore it's a better game?

Why wouldn't a better game make more money? I guess that's the part that really confuses me.



> Sure its possible, but private doesn't neccesarily mean small or undercapitalized. Private companies can be worth millions or even billions.




Sure, but I wasn't arguing that fact. 



> Well so be it. But having sucky products doesn't mean that they are produced by a private company. Public companies can make sucky products too.




Sure, I wasn't arguing that either. I'm just confused by the thought that private company automatically = better game.




> C: He makes a a product he likes better even though he knows he may not make as much (or any) money. If you agree with him great, if you don't then that is fine too.




That's fine too, but I don't understand how this implies it would be better for the game. Seems more like it would be better just for people who dig that guy's version of the game.


----------



## bouncyhead

sword3274 said:


> One thing I've taken, for example, is the 1 hp "minion" concept.  I'm also intrigued by the way the cosmology is laid out.




For me minions not so much - that's one of the more 'gamist' elements that 4E introduces which doesn't fit with my approach. But I can see why some DM's eyes lit up! They do give a load of encounter building options.



sword3274 said:


> I have to disagree with you if you are implying that 3.x had a "15 minute workday problem" - that, in my most humble opinion, has never been a game problem but rather a player issue.




I think any game that has a daily cycle to spells and healing tempts players to rest and re-boot more often. Not specifically a 3.x thing. 4E did address this with encounter powers/short rests/action points to incentivize parties to press on but, again, that's all a touch too gamist for my tastes. I appreciate it's a spectrum, we are talking about wizards and goblins after all


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

970 votes, and we have a small change:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  59%
  Partial Changeover:  9%

  Option 6:  32%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Can someone pull up the First Changeover Poll, and post the results here?

  With a comparable number of votes, we can now make a direct comparison between the results of the two polls.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scribble said:


> And again I don't think there's a difference anyway. Just because it's private or corporate.
> 
> What I'm questioning is what defines "better game."
> 
> If more people are buying it, doesn't it stand to reason more people are liking it, and therefore it's a better game?
> 
> Why wouldn't a better game make more money? I guess that's the part that really confuses me.




Let me throw a different example why I think private ownership is better for the game. 

Same Rule System but 2 ways to sell it. Both options cost the same $15,000,00 of initial investment. 

Option 1 is pure digital and costs $50. It will sell 500,000 copies so the company grosses $25,000,000 so it nets $10,000,000 in profit.

Option 2 is in paper format and costs $20. It will sell 1,000,000 copies so the company groses $20,000,000 so it nets $5,000,000 in profit.

A public company has no choice but to go with Option 1 sinse it makes the most profit for its shareholders. A private company can choose between Option 1 or Option 2 depending on whether it values more people playing the game or makeing more money. 

Again this is the same rules system so one option is not a better game than the other. Which is the better distribution option? There isn't a right answer because the right answer depends on what ones priorities are. Is the priority making more money or having more people play the game. The reason I think that ownership by a private company is better than a public one is because the private one gets an option, but a public one doesn't.


----------



## Scribble

Brown Jenkin said:


> Let me throw a different example why I think private ownership is better for the game.
> 
> Same Rule System but 2 ways to sell it. Both options cost the same $15,000,00 of initial investment.
> 
> Option 1 is pure digital and costs $50. It will sell 500,000 copies so the company grosses $25,000,000 so it nets $10,000,000 in profit.
> 
> Option 2 is in paper format and costs $20. It will sell 1,000,000 copies so the company groses $20,000,000 so it nets $5,000,000 in profit.
> 
> A public company has no choice but to go with Option 1 sinse it makes the most profit for its shareholders. A private company can choose between Option 1 or Option 2 depending on whether it values more people playing the game or makeing more money.
> 
> Again this is the same rules system so one option is not a better game than the other. Which is the better distribution option? There isn't a right answer because the right answer depends on what ones priorities are. Is the priority making more money or having more people play the game. The reason I think that ownership by a private company is better than a public one is because the private one gets an option, but a public one doesn't.




Again I have issues with this model because it assumes too many things many of them WAY too over simplified.

The reality is option 1 is not the only option of the publicly traded company. 
A good business is not only looking to make money, but also towards the health and life of the company. Sometimes number two trumps number one. 

If a company behaves in a way that will be unhealthy towards its wellbeing soley for the pupose of number one, that's a porely run company.

It's also too simplified with an either you do one thing or the other. The reality is probably looking for a way to please the most people while trying to maximize profits.

Which most likely means some type of combination of 1 & 2. 

It's also in my eyes a fallicy to assume that a non publically traded company will mean it doesn't choose option one.

I'm not arguing either is the better choice. Public or private. I just don't believe that private automatically = better for the game.


----------



## Treebore

Scribble said:


> Again I have issues with this model because it assumes too many things many of them WAY too over simplified.
> 
> The reality is option 1 is not the only option of the publicly traded company.
> A good business is not only looking to make money, but also towards the health and life of the company. Sometimes number two trumps number one.
> 
> If a company behaves in a way that will be unhealthy towards its wellbeing soley for the pupose of number one, that's a porely run company.
> 
> It's also too simplified with an either you do one thing or the other. The reality is probably looking for a way to please the most people while trying to maximize profits.
> 
> Which most likely means some type of combination of 1 & 2.
> 
> It's also in my eyes a fallicy to assume that a non publically traded company will mean it doesn't choose option one.
> 
> I'm not arguing either is the better choice. Public or private. I just don't believe that private automatically = better for the game.




The fact that I like PAizo, Green Ronin, Troll Lord Games, XRP, 93 Studios, Goodman, and others far more than I like WOTC tells me all I need to know about public versus privately owned RPG companies.


----------



## Scribble

Treebore said:


> The fact that I like PAizo, Green Ronin, Troll Lord Games, XRP, 93 Studios, Goodman, and others far more than I like WOTC tells me all I need to know about public versus privately owned RPG companies.




Which is fine. You can have any opinion that you want, who am I to tell you otherwise? 

I'm just saying that saying one is automatically better then the other for the game paints an overly simplistic false argument.

It's also a false argument to say one simply exits for making money, and not for making money through the best product it can.

There are many privately owned companies out there with what I would consider attrocious business practices. 

There are many publicaly traded companies out there doing GREAT things for the world.

The reverse of both is also true. It's just not that simple to say one automatically = better then the other.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Tuft said:


> bouncyhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the "bought the books, did read them, did not like what I read, did not start playing" people chose option seven.
> 
> "Tried" implies actual, more than one session play, IMHO.
Click to expand...


Although I didn't buy the books, I read the books of one of my players.  That was the nail in the coffin for me (although the previews and "marketing" had already given it a steep hill to climb).  I haven't played, but I still think I have a pretty informed opinion.

As for the poll, there are probably too many reasons and individual cases that one poll couldn't cover everything.  I could have chosen 4 options from bouncyhead's list (with a slight revision of not having bought the books) and it still doesn't cover all the reasons I don't/won't play.



Scribble said:


> I also think we have a differing view of sales/advertising... I don't believe you can make anyone buy something they don't actualy want to buy. (Well at least not without a gun or soemthing...)



While I may agree with your assertion about public vs. private companies, I can think of a couple of ways to get someone to buy something that they don't actually want (without a gun)...

Bait and Switch (or outright lies) or Bundling (selling it with something they do want to buy).


----------



## Scribble

Dragon Snack said:


> Bait and Switch (or outright lies) or Bundling (selling it with something they do want to buy).




Eh... I'm not sure I agree. 

In the first case you're not really getting them to buy something they don't want. You're getting them to buy something they DO want, and switching it for soemthing they don't. You're not really getting them to say this isn't what I want, but I'm going to buy it anyway.

The second one... Maybe, but is it really the same since they're still getting what they actually want? The other thing is just an added uncared about bonus.

Like when I buy a new computer and it comes with all that bonus software I don't really care about. I've never thought of it as actually having purchased that stuff. I saw it as having purchased the computer, and that other stuff was just thrown in. Whoopie, free songs from emusic.com...


----------



## korjik

I chose option 6 but it isnt entirely true.

First, we havent completely stopped 4e, but it has become the least played. It is played when the group cant all get together.

Second, we havent gone back to 3.5. We are going to play a bit of Heavy Gear, try out some SAGA (it already looks to have the same probs as 4e).

Group consensus is that it feels like a tactical game too much and an RPG not enough. Personal view is that the magic isnt very magical. I also dont think that homoginizing the classes was the way to go. A Wizard should function differently than a fighter.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Scribble said:


> Eh... I'm not sure I agree.
> 
> In the first case you're not really getting them to buy something they don't want. You're getting them to buy something they DO want, and switching it for soemthing they don't. You're not really getting them to say this isn't what I want, but I'm going to buy it anyway.
> 
> The second one... Maybe, but is it really the same since they're still getting what they actually want? The other thing is just an added uncared about bonus..



You're moving the goalposts on me.  If someone is holding a gun to your head they're not really getting you buy something you DO want, they're forcing you to buy something you don't.

And you're still paying for the bundled stuff, even if it seems like you're getting it for "free" (the cost may be negligible, but there is a cost)...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

982 votes:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  59%
  Partial Changeover:  9%

  Option 6:  31%

  The Two-Thirds Rule that has dominated this poll for the last 500 votes continues.


----------



## Zustiur

An alternative to the proposed 'why' poll, is:
For those that left/do not play 4E:
* Stuck with/went back to 3.x
* Move to different system (including earlier editions)
* Stopped gaming (or do not have a regular gaming group)


----------



## wedgeski

I play both, but the weekly game is 4E, which is the vast majority of my D&D hours. Only an irregular, long-running Dragonlance campaign is sticking with 3.5.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Can someone immediately bring up a link to the First Changeover Poll?
  We are now at the exact same number of votes that poll had, and a direct comparison can be made.

  I cannot link to it.  Can someone else do so?


----------



## miscreationist

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Can someone immediately bring up a link to the First Changeover Poll?
> We are now at the exact same number of votes that poll had, and a direct comparison can be made.
> 
> I cannot link to it.  Can someone else do so?




Here's the poll from July/August: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/235481-changeover-poll.html


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Thank you.  Thank you very much, miscreationist.

  -

  First Changeover Poll at 990 votes.

  Changeover:  37%  (Options 1 and 2)
  No Changeover:  49%  (Options 6 and 7)
  Partial Changover:  14%  (Options 3, 4, and 5)
  Option 6:  22%

  -

  Second Changeover Poll at 990 votes:

  Changeover:  32%  (Options 1 and 2)
  No Changeover:  59%  (Options 6 and 7)
  Partial Changeover:  9%  (Options 3, 4, and 5)
  Option 6:  31%

  -

  ( Based on First Changeover Poll results, at 990 votes, of:   )

  Option 1:  Complete Changeover: All 4E played now, no earlier editions of D&D  	   	277 	27.98%
  Option 2:  Largely over: Mostly 4E played now, some earlier edition play 		87 	8.79%
  Option 3:  Half over: Half 4E played now, half earlier edition play 		59 	5.96%
  Option 4:  Partial Changeover: Some 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		27 	2.73%
  Option 5:  Slight Changeover: A little 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		50 	5.05%
  Option 6:  No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play 		221 	22.32%
  Option 7:  No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play 		269 	27.17%

  -

  ( Based on Second Changeover Poll results, and 990 votes, of:  )

  Option 1:  Complete Changeover: All 4E played now, no earlier editions of D&D 		250 	25.25%
  Option 2:  Largely over: Mostly 4E played now, some earlier edition play 		65 	6.57%
  Option 3:  Half over: Half 4E played now, half earlier edition play 		39 	3.94%
  Option 4:  Partial Changeover: Some 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		17 	1.72%
  Option 5:  Slight Changeover: A little 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		32 	3.23%
  Option 6:  No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play 		310 	31.31%
  Option 7:  No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play 		277 	27.98%


----------



## Jeff Wilder

If this comparison doesn't represent an emigration of 4E players from EN World (and maybe even if it does), this is very, very bad news for 4E.


----------



## Dragon Snack

First, can we stop the with the 2/3 thing?  I'm not a fan of 4.0, but 58-59% is NOT two thirds.  A 'partial' changeover IS a changeover, to not include them with the others is disingenuous.

This poll does surprise me.  I fully expected to see a 70% (or so) changeover to 4.0, only it seems to be going in reverse.  I would have assumed that as more books were released and more options were added that the resistance to change would wane.  Maybe in time this will be the case, but it appears that WotC will have a ways to go to try to recapture those that have turned away.  They most certainly have lost momentum.

Has this poll been done on the WotC/Gleemax boards?  I don't bother with them anymore (they lost my account in the gleemax fiasco and they were a pain to access/read anyway).  I'm sure it would skew more to the changeover side of the equation, but it could be very telling...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dragon Snack said:


> First, can we stop the with the 2/3 thing?




Uh, no?



32% is as close to 1/3 as necessary to call it 1/3.

1/3* have fully switched over to 4e.

2/3* have NOT fully switched over to 4e.










* of ENworld respondents.


----------



## bouncyhead

Dragon Snack said:


> I fully expected to see a 70% (or so) changeover to 4.0.



Me too. If not more.


Dragon Snack said:


> I would have assumed that as more books were released and more options were added that the resistance to change would wane.  Maybe in time this will be the case



The acid test will be the sales (or lack thereof) of the second round of books.
I sped to my FLGS to pick up my boxed set but won't be troubling them for PHBII.


Dragon Snack said:


> ... it appears that WotC will have a ways to go to try to recapture those that have turned away.  They most certainly have lost momentum.



I reckon they are too late. My guess is that very few non-adopters think the system is fundamentally sound and are just are waiting for more 'stuff' before switching. That's only my guess of course.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Jeff Wilder said:


> If this comparison doesn't represent an emigration of 4E players from EN World (and maybe even if it does), this is very, very bad news for 4E.



Well, this poll is proably not catching many of those new to the game with 4e. Heck, maybe none. So it is possible for 4e to be successsful without us old grognards. 

So, while this _could be very bad news for WotC, it's likely a bit premature to be saying so definitivly. PHB2 sales should be very telling one way or the other._


----------



## jensun

Jeff Wilder said:


> If this comparison doesn't represent an emigration of 4E players from EN World (and maybe even if it does), this is very, very bad news for 4E.




[insert standard disclaimer about the reliability of EnWorld polls and selection bias]


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Darkwolf71 said:


> Well, this poll is proably not catching many of those new to the game with 4e. Heck, maybe none. So it is possible for 4e to be successsful without us old grognards.




I've been operating under the assumption that was the strategy since the first previews. I don't _agree _with it, but I certainly _understand _it. WotC can't operate on the niche market model-- that's folly. 

If RPGs are to be a niche market forever-- and if 4e fails, it's possible that RPGs won't ever be more than niche-- it basically assures those niche customers that there won't be any full-time designers doing RPGs.


----------



## Dragon Snack

jensun said:


> [insert standard disclaimer about the reliability of EnWorld polls and selection bias]



But it the poll is what it is and these are the numbers we have to work with (and the numbers for option 7 are pretty darn close, which lends a bit of credence).



Wulf Ratbane said:


> Uh, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 32% is as close to 1/3 as necessary to call it 1/3.
> 
> 1/3* have fully switched over to 4e.
> 
> 2/3* have NOT fully switched over to 4e.[/SIZE]



Well, we may have to agree to disagree, but (IMNSHO) it's insincere to say that if you are not half (or "fully") over you haven't "really" changed over.  If you are playing, even a little bit, you are probably buying books (edit: the majority of people at least) and keeping current on the game.  THAT is a changeover, like it or not (and quite honestly, you shouldn't need to pile on when 58% aren't playing anyway).


----------



## Gryffyn

Jeff Wilder said:


> If this comparison doesn't represent an emigration of 4E players from EN World (and maybe even if it does), this is very, very bad news for 4E.




I'm really surprised at how severe these numbers are.  The last time I recall the majority of a game's audience rejecting a new edition like this is when Hero Games tried Champions:New Millenium.  (At least, for a game I pay attention to.)


----------



## Scribble

Dragon Snack said:


> You're moving the goalposts on me.  If someone is holding a gun to your head they're not really getting you buy something you DO want, they're forcing you to buy something you don't.
> 
> And you're still paying for the bundled stuff, even if it seems like you're getting it for "free" (the cost may be negligible, but there is a cost)...




Ok I'll give you that. If the gun one counts then the bait n switch should too I guess. 

The basic point still stands though I'd say.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dragon Snack said:


> But it the poll is what it is and these are the numbers we have to work with (and the numbers for option 7 are pretty darn close, which lends a bit of credence).




Yes, the poll is what it is.



> If you are playing, even a little bit, you are probably buying books (edit: the majority of people at least) and keeping current on the game.




And it definitely isn't _that_. 

That's a huge leap. HUGE.

I think it's far more likely that if you are playing "a little bit" then you aren't remotely invested enough to buy the books and certainly not to keep current on the game.

(I assume by keeping current you meant keeping current on buying products-- as opposed to just keeping up on the news.)


----------



## Alzrius

Darkwolf71 said:


> PHB2 sales should be very telling one way or the other.




But who will be told?

Sales numbers, so far as I know, are only given to WotC. So unless they announce them, or unless somebody at a given retail store lets something slip (which'd only mean something for that store) we're not really going to know just how well the second round of Core Rulebooks sell.


----------



## DaveMage

Alzrius said:


> But who will be told?
> 
> Sales numbers, so far as I know, are only given to WotC. So unless they announce them, or unless somebody at a given retail store lets something slip (which'd only mean something for that store) we're not really going to know just how well the second round of Core Rulebooks sell.





Distributors will know.  Distributors talk.  

(And while distributors don't talk to us, they do talk to those in the industry, and word gets around.)

Will we know all the numbers?  No.  But we will certainly have a basis for comparison amongst some distributors from PHB1 to PHB2. 

Paizo sends out e-mails that include their sales rankings of "Top Products from Other Companies".  When 4E first came out, 4E stuff from WotC was on that list.  I haven't seen a single WotC product there in quite some time.  (Though, in fairness, I may have missed it, but I do look for it.)

If PHB2 sales are a dud, the game might be in serious trouble.  On the other hand, if they provide an energizing spark, then the game may be just fine.


----------



## Drkfathr1

I think the first sure sign of a problem would be a massive marketing survey surge this summer, with questions along the lines of: 

What do you not like? What would you change? What DO you like? 

Followed shortly by 4.5.


----------



## garyh

DaveMage said:


> Paizo sends out e-mails that include their sales rankings of "Top Products from Other Companies".  When 4E first came out, 4E stuff from WotC was on that list.  I haven't seen a single WotC product there in quite some time.  (Though, in fairness, I may have missed it, but I do look for it.)




I'm guessing those are sales made by Paizo.  And while Paizo stocks 4e stuff, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if folks shopping at Paizo mostly buy Paizo/3.x stuff.  Why would someone looking to buy 4e stuff go to the site of a company making their own 3.5e product to do so?  Especially since Amazon is so much cheaper if you're already online.

EDIT:  I'm still on Paizo's e-mail list from my Dragon subscriber days, and I just checked my last e-mail from them.  This is the list you're referring to:

_Top Selling Products From Other Companies
1. The Order of the Stick: War & XPs
Giant in the Playground Games

2. Pathfinder Dice Set: Rise of the Runelords
Q-Workshop

3. KOBOLD Guide to Game Design—Volume 1: Adventures
Open Design

4. Talisman: The Reaper Expansion
Fantasy Flight Games

5. Talisman—Revised 4th Edition Upgrade Pack
Fantasy Flight Games

6. Penumbra: Fantasy Bestiary (d20)
Atlas Games

7. Enemy Chocolatier
Cheapass Games

8. The Order of the Stick: On the Origin of PCs
Giant in the Playground Games

9. The Order of the Stick: Start of Darkness
Giant in the Playground Games

10. Pathfinder: Merisiel (Iconic Female Elf Rogue)
Crocodile Games_

That HAS to be for Paizo sales only.  I mean, I love OotS, but it certainly wouldn't rank in 3 of the top 10 spots in all RPG-related sales industry-wide.  And thus, any data on 4e not being on Paizo's top seller has to be taken with a large grain of salt for the reason's I outlined.


----------



## Scribble

DaveMage said:


> Paizo sends out e-mails that include their sales rankings of "Top Products from Other Companies".  When 4E first came out, 4E stuff from WotC was on that list.  I haven't seen a single WotC product there in quite some time.  (Though, in fairness, I may have missed it, but I do look for it.)




What I find interesting this time around is how the purchasing patterns are working out. I mean personally I play 4e, I really like 4e, and everyone in my group plays 4e.

I haven't purchased anything other then the 3 book gift set, the DDI, and MoTP.

All the stuff from the other books I feel like I could use shows up in the DDI so I don't really feel a "need" to buy it.

I wonder if the DDI is effecting purchasing habbits for 4e much?

I doubt I'm very much a gamer oddity.


----------



## DaveMage

Scribble said:


> What I find interesting this time around is how the purchasing patterns are working out. I mean personally I play 4e, I really like 4e, and everyone in my group plays 4e.
> 
> I haven't purchased anything other then the 3 book gift set, the DDI, and MoTP.
> 
> All the stuff from the other books I feel like I could use shows up in the DDI so I don't really feel a "need" to buy it.
> 
> I wonder if the DDI is effecting purchasing habbits for 4e much?
> 
> I doubt I'm very much a gamer oddity.




I have seen a quite a few 4E players say the same thing, so you are likely correct.  I have also seen some 4E fans, when discussing buying more of the 4E supplements saying "oh, no, I'm not falling into that trap again."

The success of the DDI, of course, is the wildcard that only the WotC people will know.  If it's sales are strong, 4E may be just fine for the long term.


----------



## Sammael

I know people who've been playing various RPGs for years without buying a single book. In my own group, out of 6 players, 2 never bothered to pick up any 3.5 books - not even the PHB - even though our 3.5 campaign ran for 5 years. 2 others got by with the PHB and maybe one or two books, and the last 2 owned a dozen books (but one of them also DMed occasionally, and the other is a book collector). The only person who bought books in large quantities was the primary DM - i.e. myself.

In other words, I very much doubt that those who play "a little" own more than the 4E PHB. Some of them may buy PHB2 for added classes, but I think the vast majority will not.


----------



## Scribble

DaveMage said:


> I have seen a quite a few 4E players say the same thing, so you are likely correct.  I have also seen some 4E fans, when discussing buying more of the 4E supplements saying "oh, no, I'm not falling into that trap again."
> 
> The success of the DDI, of course, is the wildcard that only the WotC people will know.  If it's sales are strong, 4E may be just fine for the long term.




Yeah, I have really no idea. I also get the feeling that 6 months out isn't really all that long of a time.

Especially since we're dealing with a switch from a game that was generally well liked and played (even by those who agree with the changes 4e made) and had lots of support. Sure 6 months out we have more stuff fro 4e then we did at first, but not 8 years woth of stuff. 

I think if it's not a flop (and I don't think it is) it's going to be a slower build as more people decide they want to play somethign new, or the game fills up with more options and ideas.


----------



## DaveMage

garyh said:


> I'm guessing those are sales made by Paizo.  And while Paizo stocks 4e stuff, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if folks shopping at Paizo mostly buy Paizo/3.x stuff.  Why would someone looking to buy 4e stuff go to the site of a company making their own 3.5e product to do so?  Especially since Amazon is so much cheaper if you're already online.




Yes, those are Paizo sales only.  

As to your other points, I agree, but people seemed to buy the 4E core rules from there anyway, even though they knew at that point that Paizo was going to make Pathfinder.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Alzrius said:


> But who will be told?
> 
> Sales numbers, so far as I know, are only given to WotC. So unless they announce them, or unless somebody at a given retail store lets something slip (which'd only mean something for that store) we're not really going to know just how well the second round of Core Rulebooks sell.




True enough. Weather it does well or not, I suppose we won't see any after effects for a long time, and by then we may not even know the cause.


----------



## garyh

DaveMage said:


> Yes, those are Paizo sales only.
> 
> As to your other points, I agree, but people seemed to buy the 4E core rules from there anyway, even though they knew at that point that Paizo was going to make Pathfinder.




Maybe people were looking to give the new rules a look and still toss some cash a company they like?  I dunno.  But I really don't think the lack of 4e supplements on Paizo's best-seller list means a lot.

I know some people argue Amazon numbers don't mean much, but I'd take it that Martial Power being #3 in Amazon's RPG and Gaming categories means more than it not appearing on Paizo's list.


----------



## Wicht

Scribble said:


> Yeah, I have really no idea. I also get the feeling that 6 months out isn't really all that long of a time.
> 
> Especially since we're dealing with a switch from a game that was generally well liked and played (even by those who agree with the changes 4e made) and had lots of support. Sure 6 months out we have more stuff fro 4e then we did at first, but not 8 years woth of stuff.
> 
> I think if it's not a flop (and I don't think it is) it's going to be a slower build as more people decide they want to play somethign new, or the game fills up with more options and ideas.




If it was a slow build, you would expect the numbers playing to increase, not decrease.  6 months ago, people said wait another 6 months to really see. 

To me, what is almost as telling is this thread is the numbers of people posting elsewhere about already being tired of 4e.  

That being said, doing this again, 6 months from now, will be an interesting exercise, giving us three polls to compare.


----------



## DaveMage

Scribble said:


> I think if it's not a flop (and I don't think it is) it's going to be a slower build as more people decide they want to play somethign new, or the game fills up with more options and ideas.




Past editions of D&D have usually broken under the weight of more options and ideas, so this may not be a good thing.  

Also, the cost barrier to entry goes up the more that's released.  It's one thing if, as a new player, you're told to buy 1 book (the PHB) vs. if you're told that the best (complete) way to play the game is with PHB1, Martial Power, Divine Power, Adventurer's Vault, and PHB2.  That can be a bit intimidating (especially in these economic times).  (Although, again, your point about the DDI may mitigate this, so it might not be as big an issue.)


----------



## Scribble

DaveMage said:


> Past editions of D&D have usually broken under the weight of more options and ideas, so this may not be a good thing.
> 
> Also, the cost barrier to entry goes up the more that's released.  It's one thing if, as a new player, you're told to buy 1 book (the PHB) vs. if you're told that the best (complete) way to play the game is with PHB1, Martial Power, Divine Power, Adventurer's Vault, and PHB2.  That can be a bit intimidating (especially in these economic times).  (Although, again, your point about the DDI may mitigate this, so it might not be as big an issue.)




You could be right. I'm no expert on game sales. 

I will say though that I do have my own experience with GURPS?  GURPS 4e came out, and I got the basic rules. I really liked it, played a short camapign but stopped because none of the expansion stuff was out yet. It got annoying trying to keep track of all the little changes here and there I had to keep making to use my 3rd edition stuff with 4e GURPS.

Now that there's more stuff out the next time I'm looking to play a GURPS game it's going to be be 4e.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That's a huge leap. HUGE.



But aren't you making a huge leap in the opposite direction?  Can you consider that you are allowing yourself to be influenced by your own opinions of the game?



Wulf Ratbane said:


> I think it's far more likely that if you are playing "a little bit" then you aren't remotely invested enough to buy the books and certainly not to keep current on the game.
> 
> (I assume by keeping current you meant keeping current on buying products-- as opposed to just keeping up on the news.)



I was thinking both actually.  If you are playing even a little bit, you are a possible sale for any new book (or the DDI).  Not every player buys EVERY book (no matter what the system).  However, the fact that they play puts them in the market for the book, if something in it strikes their fancy.  If they don't play, they are not in the market for whatever is in a 4.0 book (of course we have collectors or completists, but you know what I mean).

I had a player in my D&D game who only owned the 3.0 PHB for a long time.  Then I found a used 3.5 pocket PHB for him.  Then suddenly he bought the Spell Compendium when it came out.  If he wasn't playing 3.x he would have had no reason to buy it.



Sammael said:


> I know people who've been playing various RPGs for years without buying a single book. <snip>
> 
> In other words, I very much doubt that those who play "a little" own more than the 4E PHB.



While I know there are people who play without buying even one book, I have to believe those are anomalies.  I'm sure they exist (there is even one in my Savage Worlds game - and Explorer's Edition is only $10!), but how many are there, especially here.  If you're coming to ENWorld to vote in a poll of what you play, you're probably invested enough to buy a book for a game that you're playing.


----------



## Sammael

Well, I did say they bought the 4E PHB, didn't I? I also left the possibility that they may buy PHB2. That's one book per year. For comparison, I used to buy 10 or so WotC books every year, and now I don't buy any. In other words, for each _me_ WotC lost, they had to _gain_ 10 people who buy "a little." Now, this poll cannot be used to analyze that fresh blood, but it can be used to extrapolate that WotC needs _a whole lot of fresh blood_ to replace 58% hardcore RPG geeks who are no longer buying their products (or are buying in a greatly diminished capacity).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dragon Snack said:


> But aren't you making a huge leap in the opposite direction?




It's a leap on my part, in the opposite direction-- but not huge. 

I'd say the burden of proof is heavier for you to suggest that folks who aren't playing very often are nevertheless buying heavily into the game. It's an odd claim.



> Can you consider that you are allowing yourself to be influenced by your own opinions of the game?




The rather obvious assertion that 32% is about 1/3 is not my _opinion_.

And what, exactly, do you think my opinion of _the game_ is, such that my analysis of _this poll_ would be less than objective?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

> First, can we stop the with the 2/3 thing? I'm not a fan of 4.0, but 58-59% is NOT two thirds. A 'partial' changeover IS a changeover, to not include them with the others is disingenuous.




  There is a good reason that I am using the 2/3rds analysis.  Please allow me to explain.

  - I felt that the Changeover Category deserved not only those who are now Purist 4E (Option 1) but also Mostly 4E (Option 2.)
  -  I categorized No Changeover as those who *only* play Earlier Editions though, either because they never attempted 4E (Option 7) or *completely went back* to earlier editions (Option 6.)
  Those who are Mostly Earlier Editions, I counted as Partial Changeover.

  The burden of proof to nay-say 4E, as it were, was on those who would nay-say it.  You had to really say No to 4E, to count as No Changeover in this poll.  If you played ANY 4E, you counted as Partial Changeover or Changeover (look at my options, see that this is true.)
  In this respect, this poll leans towards 4E.  It is 4E friendly.
  Again, to be in the No Changeover category, you have to really say it.  NO 4E.  (again, look at the options.)

  As of 990 votes, the results were:

Changeover: 32% (Options 1 and 2)
No Changeover: 59% (Options 6 and 7)
Partial Changeover: 9% (Options 3, 4, and 5)
Option 6: 31%

  That's 59%, saying No to 4E.  Not just generally No, not mostly No, but absolutely No.  No 4E at all.  Entirely earlier editions.

  (apologetic look)

  Not my fault or my doing.  People chose, not me, how they would respond to this poll.

  But another couple of percent are saying Almost Entirely Earlier Editions.
  Yet more are saying Mostly Earlier Editions.
  Some are saying Half and Half.

  And some have chimed in, and informed me that they have quit the hobby since 4E was introduced.  Their posts are earlier in this thread.

  So if that is factored in, we really are talking about 2 out of 3, or at the very least 6 out of 10.




> This poll does surprise me. I fully expected to see a 70% (or so) changeover to 4.0, only it seems to be going in reverse. I would have assumed that as more books were released and more options were added that the resistance to change would wane. Maybe in time this will be the case, but it appears that WotC will have a ways to go to try to recapture those that have turned away. They most certainly have lost momentum.




  Yes.  The number of votes for Option 6 is surprising.  31% to 32%.
  A lot of people who were in the Partial Changeover category, and some in the Changeover category, are now in the No Changeover category.
  That, also, caused me to lean towards the 2/3rds.
  There really seems to be a lot of people who are turning to Option 6.



> Has this poll been done on the WotC/Gleemax boards? I don't bother with them anymore (they lost my account in the gleemax fiasco and they were a pain to access/read anyway). I'm sure it would skew more to the changeover side of the equation, but it could be very telling...




  I have not put any polls up there.
  If someone else wishes to, it would be telling, yes.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

There is still time to make a difference in this poll.  A mere 10 votes equals a 1% change in the results.
  ENWorld has thousands of posters, thousands of additional lurkers.

  If people will come in and vote in this poll, we can obtain a clearer and clearer picture of things.  I really think that, at least.


----------



## DaveMage

Edena: If you do this poll again down the road, please make it a public poll.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Edena_of_Neith said:


> There is still time to make a difference in this poll.  A mere 10 votes equals a 1% change in the results.
> ENWorld has thousands of posters, thousands of additional lurkers.
> 
> If people will come in and vote in this poll, we can obtain a clearer and clearer picture of things.  I really think that, at least.




Unlikely. The percentages have been amazingly consistant for pretty much the entire poll. And deviation of more than a point or two either way would be highly suspect.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Hey, we made it to 1,000 votes!  Cheers!  : )

  At 1,000 votes, it is still:

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  59%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%

  * * *

  I can now declare a Winner in the Changeover Poll:  D&D and it's associated games.
  There is more interest this time around, than in the First Changeover Poll:

  - The vote count went up much more rapidly.
  - The vote count reached 990 far earlier than it did in the First Changeover Poll.
  - The vote count is still rising.

  D&D and it's associated games are the Winners.
  Now, THAT'S a result, I can live with!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Darkwolf71 said:


> Unlikely. The percentages have been amazingly consistant for pretty much the entire poll. And deviation of more than a point or two either way would be highly suspect.




  With every new vote we get, from this point on, we show that D&D (and games along it's lines) are the Winners.
  The more who vote, the more we show that interest is strong, that people are actually here (if they weren't here, they wouldn't vote), that people care (if they didn't care, they wouldn't vote), that people want to be involved, that people still want to play D&D and it's associated games.

  So I say, let's pile on the votes!  : )


----------



## Garnfellow

Dragon Snack said:


> Has this poll been done on the WotC/Gleemax boards?  I don't bother with them anymore (they lost my account in the gleemax fiasco and they were a pain to access/read anyway).  I'm sure it would skew more to the changeover side of the equation, but it could be very telling...



I would suspect you'd see pretty different results on different boards. I don't know about the Gleemax boards (haven't been there for years), but RPGNet, for example, seems very bullish on 4e.


----------



## Derren

Garnfellow said:


> I would suspect you'd see pretty different results on different boards. I don't know about the Gleemax boards (haven't been there for years), but RPGNet, for example, seems very bullish on 4e.




Problem is that there is no General Board on Gleemax. So either you post on the 3E forum, full of people who rejected 4E or the 4E forum full of 4E fanatics.

Edit:
There is a similar poll on RPGNet. The result is not the same as here, but 4E doesn't get a landslide victory over there either.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=432575


----------



## Wicht

Derren said:


> There is a similar poll on RPGNet. The result is not the same as here, but 4E doesn't get a landslide victory over there either.
> [4th Ed] Still playing? - RPGnet Forums




Taking that poll at face value, the posters there don't seem quite so split but to summarize their findings:  1/3 reject 4e, 1/3 mix and match the editions, 1/3 (37%) have converted.   

That's actually not too dissimilar in the converted percentile in this poll.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Here are the options in that poll, and their similarity (if any) to the ones here:

  - Wasn't inspired to try at all  (Closest to Option 7, all earlier editions only)
  - Bought the books but looked crap so never played (Closest to Option 6, tried 4E, returned to earlier editions)
  - Liked the OP, started off loving but quickly soured (Also closest to Option 6:  Tried 4E, returned to earlier editions)
  - Still playing, rotating with other games/editions (Closest to Options 3, 4, and 5 - Partial Changeover options)
  - It is still my game of choice and looks to stay that way (Closest to Option 1 (all 4E) and Option 2 (mostly 4E)
  - Your favourite game sucks (Corresponds with no choice in the Changeover Poll)

  With that said, their results were:

  Wasn't inspired to try at all (Equivalent to Option 7)	   	35  	11.08%
Bought the books but looked crap so never played (Option 6)		23 	7.28%
Like the OP, started off loving but quickly soured (Option 6) 		42 	13.29%
Still playing, rotating with other games / editions (Options 3, 4, 5)		87 	27.53%
It is still my game of choice and looks to stay that way (Options 1, 2)		120 	37.97%
Your favourite game sucks! 		9 	2.85%

  Thus, had their poll been the Changeover Poll, the results would have been:

  Option 1 and 2:  38%
  Option 3, 4, and 5:  28%
  Option 6:  21%
  Option 7:  11%

  Or:

  307 votes (and 9 additional votes uncountable)

  Changeover:  38%
  Partial Changeover:  28%
  No Changeover:  33%
  Option 6:  21%

  The RPGnet poll has turned out, compared to the 2nd Changeover Poll, to have results far more favorable to 4E.

  Perhaps an *exact* replica of the Changeover Poll (the options being *exactly* the same and interpreted in *exactly* the same way - Options 1 and 2 Changeover, 3/4/5 Partial Changeover, and 6/7 No Changeover) could be placed on RPGnet?
  However, I cannot be the one to do that.  One of you, someone who regularly posts there, should do that.

  Up to you'all.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## cildarith

If we combine the numbers from the two polls as they currently stand:

Changeover: 439 votes = 34%
Partial Changeover: 176 votes = 13%
No Changeover: 693 votes = 53%

"Option 6": 378 votes = 29%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Seriously, put the Changeover Poll (in it's exact form as given here on ENWorld) on RPGnet.
  See how they vote.  You have my curiosity up.


----------



## Jasperak

For your voting pleasure

Changeover Poll - RPGnet Forums


----------



## Jasperak

I screwed up and made the poll public 

Should I keep it or try a new one?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Yes, start over.
  Tell the Admins you made a mistake, and you are fixing it with a second thread.  Have them close the first thread, the first poll.

  The Changeover Poll was meant to be private.  It is important, if you want an equivalent response on RPGnet, that it be private there.  
  Otherwise, you have set up a completely different poll than the one here.  People simply won't vote the same.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Again, start over.  I will explain myself:

  If the Changeover Poll is public, it will start a Flame War.
  People will *expect* attack, if they vote and their Screen Name is publicly shown.  And their expectations will be met.
  They will be bristling, ready to strike back.  They will.

  What would have been merely a racuous debate, will turn into a Flame War.  Obviously, nobody wants that.  Certainly not me.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

1020 votes.

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  59%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%

  Like a Rock.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(muses, very solemn)

  So it is.
  4E is rejected by those at ENWorld.

  Whether because ENWorld is pro-3E, or because 4E is unpopular, or other reasons, 4E has failed here.

  With only 26% switching fully over (Option 1) it has failed.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I wonder what percentage of the 4e adopters here were playtesters, or are no more than 1 person removed from the process (ie, playing in a game with someone who playtested).


----------



## Toben the Many

Wow.

So far, 4e is more successful over at RPG.net than over here an ENWorld! What does _that_ say?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Toben the Many said:


> Wow.
> 
> So far, 4e is more successful over at RPG.net than over here an ENWorld! What does _that_ say?




  EDIT:

  The Changeover Poll at rpg.net is far more favorable to 4E.  It is still in progress, with 141 votes.

  Changeover:  62%
  No Changeover:  28%
  Partial Changeover:  10%
  Option 6:  13%

  It is very puzzling.  There is a *massive* difference in the poll results, from ENWorld compared to RPGnet.  I cannot account for it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So far, 4e is more successful over at RPG.net than over here an ENWorld! What does that say




At 150 votes, not a whole lot. But a bit. Between the two boards, "not changing" is still winning by a fairly thick margin. I'd expect RPG.net to go more for 4e, but I kind of expected ENWorld to go more for 4e, so maybe I'm just _insane_.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I guess, if you look at the preliminary results, that ...

  RPGnet is more like the 4E board.
  ENWorld is more like the 3E board.

  EDIT:  

  Changeover is winning by a 2/3rds margin in that poll on RPGnet, almost the exactly reverse of ENWorld.  A staggering difference.
  Is that a *private* poll?  That is, can everyone see how you voted, or not?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Toben the Many said:


> Wow.
> 
> So far, 4e is more successful over at RPG.net than over here an ENWorld! What does _that_ say?




Nothing we didn't already know.

RPG.net is "Roleplay Promiscuous." 

They are roleplayers first and foremost; D&D players by circumstance. Ask them tomorrow what they are playing and it will be something different.

It says exactly what we all already know about 4e: It was designed to be appealing to a wide audience, _not_ necessarily to its niche audience.

The question is the same as it has always been: Whether or not that will prove to be a successful strategy in the long term.


----------



## Derren

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Nothing we didn't already know.
> 
> RPG.net is "Roleplay Promiscuous."
> 
> They are roleplayers first and foremost; D&D players by circumstance. Ask them tomorrow what they are playing and it will be something different.
> 
> It says exactly what we all already know about 4e: It was designed to be appealing to a wide audience, _not_ necessarily to its niche audience.
> 
> The question is the same as it has always been: Whether or not that will prove to be a successful strategy in the long term.




There are 2 theories over at RPGNet.
1) People on ENworld generally own more 3E books and thus are less willing to part with them

2) People on RPGNet usually play multiple RPG systems and are thus not bothered much by the limited scope of 4E. Some people over there even confirm that if they would only be able to play a single RPG they would like 4E a lot less.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Right. I don't think there's much brand loyalty to D&D over at RPG.net.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

The interesting question over at RPG.net would be how many are new D&D players over there. At ENWorld I expect most people here were already playing D&D. At RPG.net there is a broader range of players with different systems. Enworld shows that lots of existing D&D players here arn't switching. The larger support for 4E at the wider fan site way be indicitive of 4E supporters migrating there because it is more pro-4E or it could be that RPG.net shows many more new players for 4E.  If it is the former it may show that D&D players are merely migrating to places they fit in better, if it is the latter it may be the good news that WotC was hoping for.


----------



## Treebore

You also need to ask the rpg.net members who voted on the poll here to not vote on that boards poll.

Plus I wouldn't give the poll any significance until it reaches 750 votes. From then on it becomes more meaningful.

IF you want the data to have more meaning, do a series of "demographic" poll questions. Ask things like how long have you played 4e? How long did you play 3E? How frequent were your D&D games? Age range? Income range? how many 3E books do you own? How many 4E books have you bought so far? How many hours do each of your games sessions average?

Then link them all together, and ask that people only answer if they are able/willing to answer all the linked poll questions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Derren said:


> There are 2 theories over at RPGNet.
> 1) People on ENworld generally own more 3E books and thus are less willing to part with them
> 
> 2) People on RPGNet usually play multiple RPG systems and are thus not bothered much by the limited scope of 4E. Some people over there even confirm that if they would only be able to play a single RPG they would like 4E a lot less.




I'm sort of a hybrid.  I own a LOT of 3.X.  But I own a lot of HERO, RIFTS, and many other systems.  I don't sell my game books unless I no longer like a game, not if I'm just not currently playing it, so the financial impact of a new edition had ZERO effect on whether I'd enjoy 4Ed.  My issues with it were contained entirely within the game itself.

While I don't consider myself limited to playing a single RPG, I _AM _limited in that I can play only D&D with my 2 main game groups, both of which currently contain a preponderance of veteran gamers as members.  Like me, many didn't have major issues with the game in and of itself, but rather in the context of it as a replacement for 3.X.  Had it been released as "Bob's Game Co. Presents: Realms O' Kewl Phantasy 1Ed," we might have had a different reaction to the game, and may have even tried a few sessions of it.


----------



## Aeolius

While I have dabbled with a few other games; Gamma World, Traveller, and the like over the course of the past 30 years, I stuck with D&D for the majority of my role-playing time. I just don't see the point of detracting from a game I enjoy, to learn another game. This applied to prior editions of D&D as well.

   I skipped over 2e as it didn't seem like an improvement over 1e. 3e inspired me to create, plus I felt the time was right to switch to the current edition since my games are somewhat odd in their own right, so I switched. I am skipping 4e for the same reason I am skipping 2e, but this time around I have d20/OGL in my corner, so I am ready for the long haul.


----------



## Dragon Snack

While I'm going to respond to people, I should point out that even though I'm not playing any D&D right now, when I return it will be 3.x and not 4.0.  I'm not arguing FOR 4.0, I'm advocating an objective look at the numbers presented.  I'm looking at the potential market for editions.



Sammael said:


> Well, I did say they bought the 4E PHB, didn't I? I also left the possibility that they may buy PHB2. That's one book per year. For comparison, I used to buy 10 or so WotC books every year, and now I don't buy any. In other words, for each _me_ WotC lost, they had to _gain_ 10 people who buy "a little." Now, this poll cannot be used to analyze that fresh blood, but it can be used to extrapolate that WotC needs _a whole lot of fresh blood_ to replace 58% hardcore RPG geeks who are no longer buying their products (or are buying in a greatly diminished capacity).



I agree with you, but you are assuming things outside the purview of this poll.  Who's to say how many "No Change" people were also "one book" people?  After all, if one book got you by in 3.x, then it probably serves your purposes.  Why buy a new edition?



Wulf Ratbane said:


> It's a leap on my part, in the opposite direction-- but not huge.
> 
> I'd say the burden of proof is heavier for you to suggest that folks who aren't playing very often are nevertheless buying heavily into the game. It's an odd claim.



Where did I claim that?  My claim was that if you are playing you are in the 'market' for a new book, far more so than if you are not playing.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> The rather obvious assertion that 32% is about 1/3 is not my _opinion_.



The assertion was not 1/3 are playing, it was that 2/3 are NOT.  59% are not, that is also not my _opinion_.

59%=/=66%...



Wulf Ratbane said:


> And what, exactly, do you think my opinion of _the game_ is, such that my analysis of _this poll_ would be less than objective?



Here's a funny thing, I used to have a quote _from you_ in my sig about 4.0 and "the smell coming from the kitchen".  I think we're in agreement about 4.0, my quibble is the inflation of the numbers in this poll.



Edena_of_Neith said:


> There is a good reason that I am using the 2/3rds analysis.  Please allow me to explain.
> <snip>
> That's 59%, saying No to 4E.  Not just generally No, not mostly No, but absolutely No.  No 4E at all.  Entirely earlier editions.
> 
> (apologetic look)
> 
> Not my fault or my doing.  People chose, not me, how they would respond to this poll.
> <snip>
> And some have chimed in, and informed me that they have quit the hobby since 4E was introduced. Their posts are earlier in this thread.
> 
> So if that is factored in, we really are talking about 2 out of 3, or at the very least 6 out of 10.



Do you realize you said that "people chose, not me, how they would respond to this poll" and then proceeded to say you "factored in" a bunch of people who posted they no longer play to inflate your numbers?

6 out of 10 I can live with.  It still rounds up from the actual responses that you got, but it's certainly closer than saying 2/3.  It is also probably within the 'margin of error' for the poll.



Garnfellow said:


> I would suspect you'd see pretty different results on different boards. I don't know about the Gleemax boards (haven't been there for years), but RPGNet, for example, seems very bullish on 4e.



There was a poll on Reaper's message boards that, if you took off the "I play something else" option, gave you similar results (far fewer responses however).  Surprising, given the number of people who have asked for Dragonborn minis or converted minis into Dragonborn over there.  Anecdotally, they also sold out of quite a few of their Reptus (the Lizardfolk/Dragonfolk faction of their Warlord game) minis at Gen Con.

I've seen similar results on other smaller message boards as well, but I wasn't surprised at those numbers, given the population of those boards.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dragon Snack said:


> Here's a funny thing, I used to have a quote _from you_ in my sig about 4.0 and "the smell coming from the kitchen".  I think we're in agreement about 4.0, my quibble is the inflation of the numbers in this poll.




That was very quotable. You have good taste in sigs.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

The poll here has far more respondents than at RPGnet.
  More than 5 times as many.

  I think we need to wait for more votes to accumulate on the RPGnet Changeover Poll.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

What are Hobby Store Owners and Workers saying now?

  Back at the time of the First Changeover Poll, they were commenting on how their customers were half and half.
  Are they still saying that?  Or commenting on a change in numbers?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(humor, but true, off topic)

  How ECM and ECCM really work:

  Federation Captain:  Prepare a full spread of photon torpedoes and phasers at 80,000 kilometers, all weapons overloaded.
  Federation Helmsman:  Yes sir.
  Federation Science Officer:  Captain, they are jamming us with (6 points) of ECM.
  FC:  Dump all (4) battery power into ECCM.
  FSO:  Captain, that will negate our ability to transport our Transporter Bombs.
  FC:  Just do it.
  FSO:  Captain, the Hydran has launched some sort of small vessel, of fighter type, which is now lending ECM to the enemy ship.
  FC:  We can pull that tactic.  Drop the MPS.
  FH:  Shuttle launching.
  FSO:  Captain, there is still an ECM shift in their favor.  They clearly have more battery power than us.  Hydran ships are notable for battery power.
  FC:  We could fire on the vessel aiding their ship.
  FSO:  Captain, to destroy it at this range would require several phaser hits, or a photon hit.  If we use our weapons so, we will not be able to target the enemy ship, which has it's hellbores readied.
  FC:  We could get in closer than 80,000 kilometers and fire.  A better shot at crippling that ship.
  FSO:  Captain, that may be their intention, to draw us in.  Their Phaser Gatlings are devastating at close range, and they have 2 other fighters already out there.
  FC:  You are saying that if we stay back, our weapons may miss, but closing is mutually assured destruction, and they are baiting us?
  FSO:  Entirely possible, captain.  These are the Hydrans we are discussing.

  (next turn, nobody fired last turn, nobody closed to within 90,000 kilometers)

  Federation Engineer, from the Engine Room:  Sir, we had to jettison the overloaded photons.  The ship couldn't hold them.
  FC:  Did the Hydran jettison the overloaded hellbores?
  FSO:  Negative, captain.  They were not overloaded.
  FC:  What about the ECM?
  FH:  They are maintaining it, albeit weakened.  They have discharged their battery.
  FSO:  We also have.  Engineer, begin recharging the battery, and recharge the photons.
  FH:  Sir, the enemy ship is turning and closing.
  FC:  Move away from their ship.  Accelerate.
  FSO:  Negative, captain.  We cannot maintain full (6 point) ECCM, recharge photons and batteries, and accelerate enough to escape them.  They have their weapons readied, do not require much power to maintain them.
  FC:  Drop the ECCM then.  What now?
  FSO:  Captain, we can now maintain range, but still cannot outdistance them recharging photons.
  FC:  Maintain range.

  (But the enemy ship, at 110,000 kilometers, now fires all 4 hellbores at the Federation ship, since it no longer has ECCM up.  2 of these hit, and half the damage afflicts the rear shield (#4), the weakest.  It is badly damaged, leaving the Federation ship in a precarious state.  The Hydran ship then turns away, for the long duration required to recharge it's heavy weapons.)

  FC:  Pursue.
  FH:  They are outdistancing us, sir.
  FC:  Reserve power.
  FSO:  Captain, the Hydran is dropping his ECM, and pulling away at maximum acceleration.  We cannot overtake them before they recharge.
  FC:  Nuts.

  (The 2 hydran stinger fighters now fire, having closed to 80,000 kilometers.  One of their hellbores hits, and most of what remains of the Federation #4 shield disintegrates.)

  FC:  Fire on those fighters.

  (The Federation heavy phaser fire destroys both fighters.)

  FSO:  Captain, we must now recharge our phasers as well as our photons.  The enemy ship is recharging hellbores, at regular strength.  They clearly intend to stretch this combat out.
  FC:  We will give them that extended combat.  What about that third fighter?
  FH:  It is pulling away, sir.  It has no long range weapons.
  FC:  Keep a watch on it.  Now, recharge phasers and photons at normal power.  Two can play at this game.

  (At this point the pursuing Federation Heavy Cruiser runs right into the 4 transporter bombs, dumped out of the Hydran shuttle bay, as the Hydran Dragoon pulled away.  All 4 detonate, and the front shield (#1) of the Federation ship disintegrates, and minor damage is scored to the Federation ship.)

  (It is definitely going to be a long, drawn out engagement ...)


----------



## CleverNickName

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Back at the time of the First Changeover Poll, they were commenting on how their customers were half and half.
> Are they still saying that?  Or commenting on a change in numbers?



I would imagine that their _customers_ are mostly 4E now, since most stores do not (or cannot) carry the older edition stuff.  So you are right, a better question to ask would be, do they have more customers now, or fewer?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(more humor)

  Aboard the Imperial Star Destroyer the Avenger:

  Imperial Officer:  Sir, an enemy warship - Hydran Dragoon - coming into our sector.
  Imperial Commander:  Good.  Our first catch of the day.

  (The Hydran Dragoon and it's fighters all fire Hellbores, while still completely out of range of the (mostly World War II style line of sight) weapons of the Star Destroyer.
  Half of the combined power of the Hellbores, closes in on the weakest shield - the bridge shield of the Avenger.  That shield disintegrates ... along with the Star Destroyer Bridge.  The Imperial Captain need not worry about Vader ... he never knew what hit him.)

  (At 10,000 kilometers, enduring fire from the Star Destroyer's big guns, the Hydran and it's fighters open fire with their Phaser-Gatlings, weapons with enough power to generate an atmospheric hurricane if fired once upon a planet.  The Imperial Star Destroyer disintegrates.)

  Announcer:  The first ship, is away!  The first ship, is away!

  (general cheering)

  (The Hydrans, unlike us Earthlings or the Empire, believe in using reliable computer systems and software.  Now, if only they had perfected those Phaser-Is, they would have gone all the way ...)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

CleverNickName said:


> I would imagine that their _customers_ are mostly 4E now, since most stores do not (or cannot) carry the older edition stuff.  So you are right, a better question to ask would be, do they have more customers now, or fewer?




  That would require feedback from them.  Not the kind of thing a poll could tell.

  Now, if they discussed about how sales of Star Fleet Battles were rising, that would make me very happy indeed.  : D

  Anyways, I really hope that sales are up, that they are strong, in general.
  Heck, be it 4E or 3E or Pathfinder or C&C or whatever, if it's Fantasy Roleplaying, it's definitely Lawful Good.  : )


----------



## BryonD

Derren said:


> There are 2 theories over at RPGNet.
> 1) People on ENworld generally own more 3E books and thus are less willing to part with them



Just purely for myself....

When 4E was announced I started boxing up my books.  I wanted room for the new collection.
Handing over my cash for my new book fix (or 3 or 7 book fix) each month is something I look forward to.
This is one reason I wish I liked 4E enough to play it.  (or rather wish 4E was something I liked enough is probably a better way to put it)


----------



## Shemeska

CleverNickName said:


> I would imagine that their _customers_ are mostly 4E now, since most stores do not (or cannot) carry the older edition stuff.  So you are right, a better question to ask would be, do they have more customers now, or fewer?




That would seem to presume that when 4e came out, there were no longer any 3.5/OGL books being produced, and that there were no other games and systems out there besides WotC's current iteration of D&D.

At least in my own anecdotal experience, 3.5/OGL sales seem slightly up, 4e sales spiked with the initial core books and have since then slid very steeply, and other systems and games (White Wolf, Shadowrun, etc) have picked up a lot of people taking a break from D&D.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(Rats.  Nobody expounded on my ECM discourse.  There are truly nasty things one can do with ECM, far more clever and far worse than anything I've described.)

  1037 votes.  Alright.  We are climbing higher, getting way past the First Changeover Poll.
  I see the results are coming in from the RPGnet Changeover Poll, and woah! they are way different from here.  A different group of people is voting there, THAT is obvious.

  We are still with the same ole, same ole ...

  Changeover:  32%
  No Changeover:  59%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%

  Like a Rock (or a broken record ...)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Maybe it would be best if we acknowledged that there are 2 main D&Ds now, plus many other D&Ds?

  Main D&Ds:

  4E D&D.
  Pathfinder.

  Other D&Ds.

  3.5.
  3.0.
  2nd
  1st
  OD&D
  Original Brown Box

  C&C
  Hackmaster
  Others

  Computer D&D

  (I still think 3.0 was the very best version of all, and wish it had been given more time.  But that's just me ... and in any case, I would have added HUGE AMOUNTS of Stuff from 3.5, 4E, 2nd, 1st, and other games into it.)

  EDIT:

  Call it the Parade of the D&Ds!  : )


----------



## Aeolius

I'd say 4e D&D and Pathfinder/OGL/d20 D&D


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Maybe it would be best if we acknowledged that there are 2 main D&Ds now, plus many other D&Ds?
> 
> Main D&Ds:
> 
> 4E D&D.
> Pathfinder.
> 
> Other D&Ds.
> 
> 3.5.
> 3.0.
> 2nd
> 1st
> OD&D
> Original Brown Box
> 
> C&C
> Hackmaster
> Others
> 
> Computer D&D
> 
> (I still think 3.0 was the very best version of all, and wish it had been given more time.  But that's just me ... and in any case, I would have added HUGE AMOUNTS of Stuff from 3.5, 4E, 2nd, 1st, and other games into it.)
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Call it the Parade of the D&Ds!  : )




I'd reconsider your "order of battle" a bit.

The installed base for 3.5 is probably still bigger than Pathfinder and other variants- and by enough margin to consider it the other "main" form, despite no longer being in active production.

Pathfinder (or some other OPP game like AU/AE or C&C) may yet supplant it, but its not there yet.


----------



## DaveMage

How many members are there at rpg.net?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Alright, the Three D&Ds.  (it almost rhymes)

  4E D&D.
  3.5 D&D.
  Pathfinder/OGL/d20.

  Leading the Parade of D&Ds.

  ( Now, anyone have some appropriate parade music?   : )   )


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Alright, the Three D&Ds.  (it almost rhymes)
> 
> 4E D&D.
> 3.5 D&D.
> Pathfinder/OGL/d20.
> 
> Leading the Parade of D&Ds.
> 
> ( Now, anyone have some appropriate parade music?   : )   )






> *Three Amigos Theme*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJmesqycoQU&feature=related
> 
> One for each other and all for one
> the Three brave Amigos are we
> Brother to Brother and everyone
> A brave amigo
> Fighting for justice and liberty
> where ever you find is where we will be
> for the three brave amigos are we
> 
> We are the three Amigos
> We are the three Amigos
> 
> Over the mountains across the plains
> the three brave amigos are we
> Stamping out evil till none remains
> the brave amigos
> the three brave amigos
> Where ever they meet us our destinys lead us
> amigos we are always together
> where ever we go we're three brave amigos
> and we'll be amigos forever
> 
> We are the three Amigos
> We are the three Amigos
> We are the three Amigos




_*Looks to right and spits*_


----------



## Mark

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Maybe it would be best if we acknowledged that there are 2 main D&Ds now, plus many other D&Ds?
> 
> Main D&Ds:
> 
> 4E D&D.
> Pathfinder.
> 
> Other D&Ds.
> 
> 3.5.
> 3.0.






Nope.  There really is 4E D&D and then 3.x D&D plus compatibles (most stuff is easily interchangable between 3.5/Pathfinder/3.0/Many Others).  Then you have a bunch of older editions of D&D.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Mark said:
			
		

> Nope.  There really is 4E D&D and then 3.x D&D.




Right. There's 4E, and there's 3E. 

Everything else: Radar blips.

Perhaps dearly loved and cuddled blips, but blips nonetheless.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Keep this up, and DIAGLO will be roused!


----------



## Darkwolf71

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I wonder what percentage of the 4e adopters here were playtesters, or are no more than 1 person removed from the process (ie, playing in a game with someone who playtested).




I wonder why you wonder this. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwolf71 said:


> I wonder why you wonder this. Could you elaborate?




My guess would be that experience with the game that close to the source could have an effect on the quality of one's experience.  The ease of rules clarifications, the DM's familiarity with the rules, etc., would all influence how the game was run- especially how_ smoothly _it was run- and thus, lead to a more positive experience.


----------



## Jack99

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Maybe it would be best if we acknowledged that there are 2 main D&Ds now, plus many other D&Ds?
> 
> Main D&Ds:
> 
> 4E D&D.
> Pathfinder.




Pathfinder is not played by that many people, at least not if you give any credence to polls made here. Witness these two polls, made around the same time as this one.

What RPG do you play the most? Pathfinder 5,34% 
Switching to Pathfinder instead of 4e: 8,92%

Of course, if these numbers were anywhere near the truth, I guess the Paizo guys would be wetting themselves. Too bad they are most likely only true for Enworld, not for the D&D community.


----------



## (un)reason

DaveMage said:


> How many members are there at rpg.net?



 Currently at 29,368. It was twice that a few months ago, but they decided to have a big clearout of all the unused accounts, due to forum slowdown.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Darkwolf71 said:


> I wonder why you wonder this. Could you elaborate?






Dannyalcatraz said:


> My guess would be that experience with the game that close to the source could have an effect on the quality of one's experience.  The ease of rules clarifications, the DM's familiarity with the rules, etc., would all influence how the game was run- especially how_ smoothly _it was run- and thus, lead to a more positive experience.




Right. That, as well as the possibility that if 4e is the game you want to play, then possibly (hopefully) your playtest feedback had something to do with that-- with shaping a game that meets your needs.

There's a couple of different converse corollaries to that.


----------



## Roman

I have not tried 4E and have no intention of doing so. The several looks at the rules I have had were sufficient for me to determine that 3.X edition and the Pathfinder RPG are more suitable to both my DMing and playing needs.


----------



## Zustiur

Edena_of_Neith said:


> (Rats.  Nobody expounded on my ECM discourse.  There are truly nasty things one can do with ECM, far more clever and far worse than anything I've described.)



I'm probably not a good example of the average ENworlder, but I totally failed to see the relevance, or the humour in your tale. I thought this was a thread about D&D, and I keep finding all these random posts about Star Trek... I just don't get it. I nearly complained (in thread) last time there was a series of posts about it, but chose to let the matter drop. This time I couldn't stop myself.


----------



## love.christine

Still playing 3e/Pathfinder.

Also playing 4E.

Both groups are going pretty darn strong. We're starting to warap up the 3E game, but I'll be GMing the next Pathfinder game.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Right. That, as well as the possibility that if 4e is the game you want to play, then possibly (hopefully) your playtest feedback had something to do with that-- with shaping a game that meets your needs.



That's assuming they paid attention to the playtest feedback you gave and if you saw the final version.  I know a few people who were involved in the 4.0 playtest and they aren't overwhelming fans of it (none of them give it glowing praise and one of them outright hates it), although they are currently playing it.

I've been involved in playtests before where I wondered why I bothered giving feedback (sometimes they even kept misprints that I pointed out) and since playtesters rarely see the final version, often things are changed after they've seen them (the last playest I was in saw the race I played rewritten at least 3 times and, judging from the pregens I've seen, they appear to have been rewritten again).


----------



## BryonD

Toben the Many said:


> Wow.
> 
> So far, 4e is more successful over at RPG.net than over here an ENWorld! What does _that_ say?



(Granted the numbers have changed since this post, but)

To me it says something that only 56% mostly to complete changeover and 33% non-change is viewed (by some, not necessarily Toben) as the vindicating counter-poll.  Rather than "more successful" there, it seems to me more precise to say that things are even worse here.  Particularly if you consider that it appears the "new shiny" phase is already done and player attrition is already starting.  

This poll claims that they lost 55-60% of the prior fan base.  But wait, this other poll says they only lost 33-40%.  Sounds like a distinction in degree of pummeling to me.  Even if you assume that this poll is completely worthless and that poll is valid, it is still a kick in the teeth.


----------



## garyh

BryonD said:


> (Granted the numbers have changed since this post, but)
> 
> To me it says something that only 56% mostly to complete changeover and 33% non-change is viewed (by some, not necessarily Toben) as the vindicating counter-poll.  Rather than "more successful" there, it seems to me more precise to say that things are even worse here.  Particularly if you consider that it appears the "new shiny" phase is already done and player attrition is already starting.
> 
> This poll claims that they lost 55-60% of the prior fan base.  But wait, this other poll says they only lost 33-40%.  Sounds like a distinction in degree of pummeling to me.  Even if you assume that this poll is completely worthless and that poll is valid, it is still a kick in the teeth.




So, assuming there was a way to really know the actual percent changeover of all D&D players, and not just the subset of one forum or another, what would be an acceptable conversion rate, and how could WotC have met that, since plainly in your opinion 4e has failed to do so?


----------



## M.L. Martin

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Right. There's 4E, and there's 3E.
> 
> Everything else: Radar blips.
> 
> Perhaps dearly loved and cuddled blips, but blips nonetheless.





   Depends on your measurement.

  Purchasing material: Slim to nonexistent.

  Participating in message boards: Limited.

  Actually playing: Probably a lot larger than we think. 

  I would be willing to wager that _any_ edition of D&D has a user base competitive with, if not surpassing, Pathfinder or the other variants.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Zustiur said:


> I'm probably not a good example of the average ENworlder, but I totally failed to see the relevance, or the humour in your tale. I thought this was a thread about D&D, and I keep finding all these random posts about Star Trek... I just don't get it. I nearly complained (in thread) last time there was a series of posts about it, but chose to let the matter drop. This time I couldn't stop myself.




  (solemnly)

  This is a poll about D&D, yes.
  But would you prefer another endless thread, of hundreds of posts, about whether 4E is relevant versus 3E, or D&D versus Pathfinder, or ENWorld versus other messageboards, or Old Hands versus New People?  We already have those threads aplenty, and certainly enough posts about them in this thread.

  The spirit that kindled D&D is the spirit that kindled Star Fleet Battles and ECM.  They both arise from the same spring.  The enthusiasm and hot blooded passion enabled them both.

  Now, that enthusiasm is gone.  Star Fleet Battles is gone.  Dragon Magazine is gone.  Dungeon Magazine is gone.
  And there is a VERY real chance that Dungeons and Dragons is going to be gone.  That Hasbro is going to lock it away, and keep the copyrights.  And that, in these grim times, all the successor games will collapse (Pathfinder included.)  And then there will be no more Hobby.

  I could spend my extra posts discussing this.  It would most certainly be On Topic, since it relates directly to this poll.
  But, is that the kind of thing we really *want* to talk about?  Or isn't it self-evident, isn't that something we all already know?  Isn't something we know, and wish we didn't know about?

  You find offense at a few posts about Star Fleet Battles?  (Not Star Trek ... the two are almost totally unrelated, except the names.)
  You find offense at a few light hearted posts, when there is a real threat of our Hobby collapsing, everyone knows it, and I choose not to talk about it because everyone knows it, has heard it over and over, has seen it happen with Dragon and Dungeon, and for heaven's sake haven't they had enough of it?

  Very well.  I'll go along with your line of thinking.  I'll discuss only the On Topic material.  I won't lighten things with my offensive humor.  I won't try to lighten a dark situation.
  I'll talk about the horror stories I've heard.  I'll talk about the collapse of gaming stores.  The collapse of settings.  The collapse of magazines.  The anger and the hatred running amok.  The imminent end of D&D, if things continue to go as they are going.

  But hey, at least I won't be talking about that offensive ECM out of the merry (and now pretty much dead) game of Star Fleet Battles, will I?


----------



## Scribble

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Now, that enthusiasm is gone.  Star Fleet Battles is gone.  Dragon Magazine is gone.  Dungeon Magazine is gone.




Nah I got a subscription to both. They come with my subscription to DDI. 



> And there is a VERY real chance that Dungeons and Dragons is going to be gone.  That Hasbro is going to lock it away, and keep the copyrights.  And that, in these grim times, all the successor games will collapse (Pathfinder included.)  And then there will be no more Hobby.




 I think you're being a little alarmist here... I don't think there's a VERY real chance of D&D being gone. I'm jnot sure there's even a real chance.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

> Originally Posted by Zustiur View Post
> I'm probably not a good example of the average ENworlder, but I totally failed to see the relevance, or the humour in your tale. I thought this was a thread about D&D, and I keep finding all these random posts about Star Trek... I just don't get it. I nearly complained (in thread) last time there was a series of posts about it, but chose to let the matter drop. This time I couldn't stop myself.




(ANGER)

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  9%

  It has become an established thing that two opposed camps, enjoying mutual antipathy (or far worse), exist, between those who play 4E and those who play earlier editions.
  This nice little set of affairs was created by the behavior of Hasbro, which said:  You shall play it out way, or you are out of the Hobby.  Our way, is the only way, and if you do not like that, leave!
  This fed a wellspring of anger and hatred that led to a Flame War, which has destroyed friendships, wrecked messageboards, and hurt us all.  Hasbro?  They couldn't care less, it would appear.

  Well, the 4E camp gained 1% this last time around, and the 3E camp lost 1%.
  I suppose this will make the 4E camp very happy, and take that! 3Ers.
  I mean, after all, aren't the 4Eers saying your older edition stinks, and that it should be relegated to the dust bin of history?  Isn't Hasbro saying that, too?  And now, they have an extra 1% on you to prove their case.
  Of course, as the results from RPGnet show, if they are right, YOU are relics of a by-gone time, Old Hands from another era, and perhaps you should be relegated to the dust bin of history too.  They seem to think ENWorld is full of relics like you, that ENWorld stands alone in this, that you are passé and when you are gone, things will be better.
  Why do I say this?  Because they've said all this, over and over and over (and implied it even more.)
  I don't think that way, but they do, and they will be very happy to have that extra 1%.  More power to them, and all the worst for you.

  Meanwhile, a large group of people who were trying to have something called 'fun' were caught in the middle.  Trying 4E, they found it was no fun, and either left the Hobby, left D&D, or went back to earlier editions, for which they have no official support (which they deserve, but they won't get, and the 4E people seem to agree they shouldn't get any support.  How dare they ask for support?  What have they done, to deserve support, the wretches?)

  And there are a few people, titanically struggling, who play all the editions, despite the fact that everyone is denouncing them, everyone is trying to tell them what edition they HAVE to play, what edition is good for them, what form of thinking is right and which form of thinking is incorrect, and perfectly willing to flame them, bash them, denounce them, for not toeing the party line (or someone else's line, or whoever's line.)

  All of this, of course, is extremely appealing to the Young.
  The Young really enjoy watching older people fight and hate, turning our Hobby into one giant Edition War, turn our messageboards into bloodbaths, turn fun into anger, turn fantasy into despair, turn a good time into wreckage.
  Why, the Young enjoy this so much, that few indeed are willing to come into the Hobby.  Even if they had no other options, they would not come (would you, if you were a 16 year old?  Or don't you have enough trouble in your life as it is?)
  Of course, an IMMENSE amount of competition exists, and so the Young go to those sources, and enjoy themselves there, and spend their money (what little there is) there, and they do not come to our Hobby, the future of our Hobby dims and fails some more, Hasbro tries it's stiff-arm tactics in vain to win them over while driving away or splitting the Old Hands market, and the whole thing is collapsing like a House of Cards.

  There.

  Enjoy the new format?

  We can't have a few humorous posts about ECM, from a game that was fun.
  No, we must talk about the dreadful reality.  We have a hundred other threads, with a thousand posts each, discussing, arguing, fighting, fighting to the death, over the dreadful reality ... but we cannot have a few humorous posts.  No sir.

  So, here's your new format.  Enjoy it?

  I didn't think so.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I would prefer the few humorous posts about ECM.
  The reality of what has happened, with Dragon, Dungeon, editions, settings, the whole thing, is just a little too painful.

  A little humor is needed.  My heavens, isn't there little enough humor in the godawful reality of what has happened?

  If there is no room for humor - in a messageboard devoted to gaming, of all places - what is the point?

  The post I just made, I could have made at the *beginning.*
  I didn't make that post, because I dislike feeding hatred and anger.  I happen to know where hatred and anger *lead.*  I should.  I got a Doctorate in the subject, learned first hand.  Trust me.
  Why do you think I refused to be involved in the Edition Flamewar?  
  Why do you think I mourned, watched in sadness, as the Edition War helped further wreck the situation?

  I don't like making posts like the one above.
  I like being flippant.  I like being humorous.  I like playing up the good, and playing down the bad.
  And, although I love giving poll numbers, endless numbers of poll number statements get boring.  Something is needed to spice it up.  Something, to keep interest, and maybe even ... bring back some old, good memories on the part of some of our posters (others remember Star Fleet Battles, remember how good a time they had at it ... and every time I posted about it, those posts were marked Off-Topic.  You don't have to read them if they offend, you know!)

  I will not be dragged into the grim horror of what has happened.
  It is bad enough I have to read it.
  I will not feed the Flamewar Monster.  I will not feed the Hate Monster.  I will not feed the Anger Monster.

  The ECM Monster?  THAT is a monster I can feed.
  The Hate Monster?  I would put a +5 lance through it's heart, if I could.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Sammael

Overreact much?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Rant over.

  My apologies to Morrus and the Admins for making it.
  But can you appreciate why I did so?  What I feel?  What I choose to hold in, because I really do not wish to aggravate the climate of anger and hatred that has run amok, even on ENWorld, because of the behavior of Hasbro and others?  Because our Hobby has fallen on hard times?

  Of course, we should discuss the fact the Hobby has fallen on Hard Times.  Of course, this is a messageboard for doing that!

  But there are a hundred threads, a thousand threads, about that.

  I merely try to interject humor where I can, and I withhold from talking about the obvious.
  The obvious is *painful.*  It is for me.  I've been in the hobby for 30 years, and what I see is very painful.

  But rather than continue to rant and rave about the painful nature of things, or be involved in Edition Wars, or Flame Wars, or whatever, I post a poll (which, to be frank, is silly - this poll is stupid and meaningless ... the one GOOD thing about it, is that it shows an INCREASED interest in the Hobby, and I call that *good*) and make a few off-hand comments about ECM while waiting 2 months for the results to come in.
  Can you blame me?

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith

  EDIT:  

  No, it is not an overreaction.  Morrus had to Ban Edition War threads for 2 months, in order to protect ENWorld from the anger run amok.  Morrus doesn't do things like that lightly.
  Morrus took it on the chin, in order to protect this messageboard.  I salute him.  It was the right thing to do.  Nobody has the right to turn ENWorld into another bloodbath, as they did practically *every other* messageboard.

  What is so bad about a few remarks about ECM?
  Heck, if you took everything I had to say about ECM, put together, it would not equal 1/10th of the text for that rule within that game, alone!  
  It was insignificant.
  I hope the person who has issued the Complaint (and, shouldn't I - as a matter of ethical discourse - reply to Complaints?  Isn't it reasonable that I be required to answer Complaints?  I have a code to live up to, also) will read what I wrote, and appreciate where I'm coming from.

  I will not discuss ECM anymore on this thread.  (Since Star Fleet Battles is mostly dead, and no messageboards exist for it, I probably won't be discussing it period anywhere, but certainly not on ENWorld which is a D&D and related games board.)

  I will not discuss ECM.
  But I will also not discuss the Horror Topic.  I leave that to others. 
  Because if it isn't fun, if there is no fun to be had, then I do not want to discuss it.

  Where there is fun to be found in a thread, you'll find me.  Where there is no fun, no joy, nothing of hope or gladness, I will not be there.


----------



## Sammael

I was referring to the way you reacted to the off-topic posting criticism, Edena. 

Personally, I just skip the Star Trek posts, but I can see how a forum member who comes into the thread, sees a long reply, expects it to be about the thread subject, and then ends up reading an essay on Star Trek, can be somewhat confused as to what the meaning of that essay is and how it pertains to the matter at hand. When the thread contains multiple such essays, well... it's a bit strange. 

But I'm not exactly sure how the suggestion that Star Trek posts don't belong in this thread implies that they have to be replaced with apocalyptic rants on the state of the game?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Again, rant over.
  I just had to say all that, get it off my chest.

  I have tried to answer the Complaint.  I have promised not to discuss ECM again.
  And again, I apologize to Morrus and the Admins for the rant.

  If I am out of line, please *do* call me out.

  But do not expect another rant.  Only apologies, and more humorous posts (if that is possible, somehow, in some other context besides ECM, of course.)
  Attack or criticize a specific person, even if they attack me?
  I don't think so.  Don't expect it.  It isn't happening.  It isn't going to happen.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Sammael said:


> (snip)
> 
> But I'm not exactly sure how the suggestion that Star Trek posts don't belong in this thread implies that they have to be replaced by apocalyptic rants on the state of the game?




  (muses)

  I have lurked and watched others conduct the Edition Flamewar, the Dragon and Dungeon Flamewar, all of it.
  I have said nothing.  (Heck, what is there to say?  I can cry in my beer and I have, but there is nothing relevant I could possibly say.)

  So I make a few humorous posts, and now someone has posted a Formal Protest.
  So, I am going to Cease and Desist, as he has asked me to do.

  He isn't an Admin, no.  But he is a fellow poster, and when people issue formal protests over your humor, it is no longer humorous, no?  And if it is not humorous, there is no point in posting it.

  I merely try to say to my fellow poster, who issued the Protest, that there are far too many posts filled with Anger and Hatred, and far too few about Humor and Fun.
  That's what I'm saying.
  That's what I was trying to show.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(falls silent, and has nothing more to say.)


----------



## S'mon

Edena_of_Neith said:


> We can't have a few humorous posts about ECM, from a game that was fun.




I don't think your concept of humour bears much resemblence to the term as commonly understood by the rest of us, Edena.  Forgive us mere mortals.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

S'mon said:


> Forgive us mere mortals.




  You imply I mean insult to you and others.
  I do not mean to insult anyone.

  Nor do I intend to be condescending, to you or others.
  If I come off that way, my apologies.


----------



## S'mon

Edena_of_Neith said:


> You imply I mean insult to you and others.
> I do not mean to insult anyone.
> 
> Nor do I intend to be condescending, to you or others.
> If I come off that way, my apologies.




No, I don't think you mean to be insulting or condescending.  I'm just asking you to accept feedback - I, and I think most people, really cannot discern anything humorous in those ECM essays you posted.  Please be aware of this difference in our perspectives.  

Conversely, this poll has I think provided useful factual information, because of the large number of respondents, and that has been due to you plugging away and keeping this thread active for so long.  Thank you for doing that.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

S'mon said:


> No, I don't think you mean to be insulting or condescending.  I'm just asking you to accept feedback - I, and I think most people, really cannot discern anything humorous in those ECM essays you posted.  Please be aware of this difference in our perspectives.
> 
> Conversely, this poll has I think provided useful factual information, because of the large number of respondents, and that has been due to you plugging away and keeping this thread active for so long.  Thank you for doing that.




  Thank you for the compliment, S'mon.  Cheers to you, sir.

  I really do believe, that the increased number of voters in this poll means something - something good.
  The 1st Changeover Poll netted 990 votes.  This one has 1078 votes, and counting, and in far less time to get to that number of votes than the first time around.

  I believe (just me) that this means an increase in interest in the game.
  I think *that's* a good thing.


----------



## Jack99

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Now, that enthusiasm is gone.  Star Fleet Battles is gone.  Dragon Magazine is gone.  Dungeon Magazine is gone.
> And there is a VERY real chance that Dungeons and Dragons is going to be gone.  That Hasbro is going to lock it away, and keep the copyrights.  And that, in these grim times, all the successor games will collapse (Pathfinder included.)  And then there will be no more Hobby.




Dragon magazine and Dungeon magazine are still there. In fact, they are better than they have been for years. Sure, the format may not appeal to you, but that's fairly irrelevant. They are still there!

Also, what do you base this "real chance that D&D will be gone" on? Do you have insider information we do not have? Do you have an education and some real statistics that enables you to make such a claim?

Because, and you may not realize this, D&D will never be gone. That's why people still play OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x aside from 4e. Even if Hasbro locked D&D far and away, we would still have our books! That's right, no ninjas will come and steal your books. 

The OGL and general weak laws regarding copyright and games would ensure that just about anything for D&D could still be produced by those willing, because, let's face it. 5 million people just won't stop loving and playing D&D because Hasbro decides that it's not worth it anymore. So if they close shop, you can be sure that others will take over.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Buncha stuff



I suspect that the time has come to talk about pirates as they relate to the RPGA and one 164th level cleric.


----------



## Renfield

Bought the books, tried it, my players hate it I'm about 85% against it but there's 15% that wouldn't mind running a game or two sort of how people run miniature battles and so on. I don't think it's worth investing the time of a full 1-30 campaign or anything. But we're pretty much sticking with Pathfinder until I find the time and people interested in trying it on the side so I chose 'played it and went back to previous edition'.


----------



## Renfield

Jack99 said:


> Dragon magazine and Dungeon magazine are still there. In fact, they are better than they have been for years. Sure, the format may not appeal to you, but that's fairly irrelevant. They are still there!




Hmmm, I'll have to disagree with you on that statement, they are no where near better than they have been in years. I honestly think their best run was with Paizo. Though I will admit I didn't read any from OD&D and I stopped reading them after they were no longer free. If their quality increased x10 since Wizards started charging then I've little faith in the statement that they're better than they've been in years.

But then it all really comes down to opinion doesn't it.


----------



## Jack99

Renfield said:


> Hmmm, I'll have to disagree with you on that statement, they are no where near better than they have been in years. I honestly think their best run was with Paizo. Though I will admit I didn't read any from OD&D and I stopped reading them after they were no longer free. If their quality increased x10 since Wizards started charging then I've little faith in the statement that they're better than they've been in years.
> 
> But then it all really comes down to opinion doesn't it.




Quality or not (I guess that's pretty subjective, so let's agree to disagree), they still exist. Will you agree on that at least? If you do, then saying that they no longer exist is flat out wrong (which was what I was commenting on).

Cheers


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Jack99 said:


> saying that they no longer exist is flat out wrong (which was what I was commenting on).



It's not wrong.  Something can change forms, keep the same name (and even the same premise), and yet no longer exist.

Is it wrong to say that "Knight Rider" no longer exists?  I don't believe that's a "flat out wrong" statement, and yet there's a show on called "Knight Rider."  (Providing, incidentally, yet more proof against the existence of a benevolent God.)

I'm with the other guy: _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ no longer exist.


----------



## Jack99

Jeff Wilder said:


> It's not wrong.  Something can change forms, keep the same name (and even the same premise), and yet no longer exist.
> 
> Is it wrong to say that "Knight Rider" no longer exists?  I don't believe that's a "flat out wrong" statement, and yet there's a show on called "Knight Rider."  (Providing, incidentally, yet more proof against the existence of a benevolent God.)
> 
> I'm with the other guy: _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ no longer exist.




Something can't "not exist no longer" just because you do not like the edition. Things just do not work that way. Now you are like Tetsubo who says that 3.5 was the last edition of D&D. Again, things do not work like that.
No matter how much you hate 4e and Dragon and Dungeon as they are now, they are still there, they are still Dragon and Dungeon, providing us with fluff and crunch and all the other stuff for our weekly game, and hey, wouldn't you know, they are still D&D.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I believe (just me) that this means an increase in interest in the game.




I believe it means an increased interest in your poll.

I didn't vote the first time.


----------



## Imaro

Jack99 said:


> Something can't "not exist no longer" just because you do not like the edition. Things just do not work that way. Now you are like Tetsubo who says that 3.5 was the last edition of D&D. Again, things do not work like that.
> No matter how much you hate 4e and Dragon and Dungeon as they are now, they are still there, they are still Dragon and Dungeon, providing us with fluff and crunch and all the other stuff for our weekly game, and hey, wouldn't you know, they are still D&D.




Eh, I can see both PoV... It's sort of like water and ice.  I mean you can have your ice cube and it is *ice*... or you can have your water/melted *ice*.  Sorta like you can have your magazines...Paper, physical, collectible... and you can have your PDF's... which lack some of the fundamental characteristics of a paper magazine, but have new characteristics. 

 Really it's all in how you look at it.  For me some of those characteristics the paper magazine had, defined Dragon and Dungeon (My ice)... thus for me, and many others, the new PDF's are more akin to water or melted ice than actual ice...Now I can say the ice doesn't exist and be perfectly right, while you can claim the ice exists, just in a different form and be correct as well.  It all depends on whether you view the "solid" form as being a definitive feature of ice or not.


----------



## BryonD

garyh said:


> So, assuming there was a way to really know the actual percent changeover of all D&D players, and not just the subset of one forum or another, what would be an acceptable conversion rate, and how could WotC have met that, since plainly in your opinion 4e has failed to do so?



I'll first point out that I didn't say this represented all players.  I said that the other poll was being used as a counter-point and I consider that very telling.  The "good news" poll is still pretty bad news.

But yes, in my opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) it has failed to do so.

I think wotc could have done better by showing more respect for the conventions that had worked well for the game in the past and showing more respect for the level of complexity that the bulk of gamers embrace and find rewarding.  If you woudl like more detail on these items, I'd refer you to hundreds, if not thousands, of other threads over the past 18 months.  It isn't like the issues are a secret.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Jeff Wilder said:


> ...and yet there's a show on called "Knight Rider."  (Providing, incidentally, yet more proof against the existence of a benevolent God.)




Edena, are you paying attention? Now _that_ is humor.

Well struck, Sir Wilder. Well struck.

WP


----------



## Jack99

Imaro said:


> Eh, I can see both PoV... It's sort of like water and ice.  I mean you can have your ice cube and it is *ice*... or you can have your water/melted *ice*.  Sorta like you can have your magazines...Paper, physical, collectible... and you can have your PDF's... which lack some of the fundamental characteristics of a paper magazine, but have new characteristics.
> 
> Really it's all in how you look at it.  For me some of those characteristics the paper magazine had, defined Dragon and Dungeon (My ice)... thus for me, and many others, the new PDF's are more akin to water or melted ice than actual ice...Now I can say the ice doesn't exist and be perfectly right, while you can claim the ice exists, just in a different form and be correct as well.  It all depends on whether you view the "solid" form as being a definitive feature of ice or not.




Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.


----------



## Imaro

Jack99 said:


> Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.




Hyperbole?  What hyperbole?

Honestly, no snark intended, but why is whatever you *feel* defines Dungeon and Dragon magazine any more valid than what someone else does?  There's alot more missing than just it being made of paper,  but in the end what you choose as "defining" characteristics of the magazines PDF's is no more or less valid (in an objective sense) than what characteristics anyone else decides define the mags for themselves.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Jack99 said:


> Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.




Not of the brand names dragon and Dungeon maybe. But for many of us dead trees is a defining characteristic of Dragon _Magazine_ and Dungeon _Magazine_.


----------



## garyh

BryonD said:


> I'll first point out that I didn't say this represented all players.  I said that the other poll was being used as a counter-point and I consider that very telling.  The "good news" poll is still pretty bad news.
> 
> But yes, in my opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) it has failed to do so.
> 
> I think wotc could have done better by showing more respect for the conventions that had worked well for the game in the past and showing more respect for the level of complexity that the bulk of gamers embrace and find rewarding.  If you woudl like more detail on these items, I'd refer you to hundreds, if not thousands, of other threads over the past 18 months.  It isn't like the issues are a secret.




Yes, obviously we've had countless 4e vs 3e threads over the last year.  But that's not what I'm getting at.  I'm asking what a successful percent changeover WOULD be, and how WotC could have gotten there.

Really, what I'm probably getting at is that anything short of 100% conversion would likely be looked at as "failure" by detractors (of course, if 100% converted, there'd be no detractors  ), and highlighting the essential unwinnable situation WotC is in with regards to converting those strongly attached to in previous editions.

The person who loved 3.x and owned thousands in 3.x product and felt it did everything they needed?  They weren't ever going to convert to a new edition.  There are a lot of those people on EN World, certainly a higher percentage than the general gaming population.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

garyh said:


> Yes, obviously we've had countless 4e vs 3e threads over the last year.  But that's not what I'm getting at.  I'm asking what a successful percent changeover WOULD be, and how WotC could have gotten there.
> 
> Really, what I'm probably getting at is that anything short of 100% conversion would likely be looked at as "failure" by detractors (of course, if 100% converted, there'd be no detractors  ), and highlighting the essential unwinnable situation WotC is in with regards to converting those strongly attached to in previous editions.
> 
> The person who loved 3.x and owned thousands in 3.x product and felt it did everything they needed?  They weren't ever going to convert to a new edition.  There are a lot of those people on EN World, certainly a higher percentage than the general gaming population.




There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.


----------



## garyh

Brown Jenkin said:


> There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.




Good point, and one I happen to agree with.

I just see a lot of 4e detractors claiming that the game must be a bad game / a commercial failure / not really D&D / etc. because X% / my group / the people at my FLGS / etc. haven't switched, and it bothers me.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.




Bingo - assuming the new players buy the books at a rate equal to or greater than the previous customer base. (In other words, the newbies better have a couple DaveMage types in their group.  )

That's the question on the success of 4e from a business side: Did it, will it, has it attracted enough new gamers to make the loss of a segment of existing players be inconsequential?

I don't know.

And, for what it's worth, I don't like that marketing decision (if indeed it was one). I think there would have been a way to have your cake and eat it too. For example: (1) remove the accounting issues stemming from overly complex subsystems and (2) retain the core paradigm (Great Wheel, half-orcs, druids, etc.) that had been established. Greatly simplified, I know, but hopefully you get the gist.

I see a number of posts from folks who aren't playing 4e - not because of the _game_ - but because it's so different as to make conversion of their homebrew campaigns (from 1e/2e/3e -< 4e) a chore to convert. That's a shame.

'Pen


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Darrin Drader said:


> I suspect that the time has come to talk about pirates as they relate to the RPGA and one 164th level cleric.




  (chuckles)

  There is no Sea of Fallen Stars.  They nuked it, remember, for 4E?

  And it's 161st level.  161st level!  : D


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Jack99 said:


> Dragon magazine and Dungeon magazine are still there. In fact, they are better than they have been for years. Sure, the format may not appeal to you, but that's fairly irrelevant. They are still there!
> 
> Also, what do you base this "real chance that D&D will be gone" on? Do you have insider information we do not have? Do you have an education and some real statistics that enables you to make such a claim?
> 
> Because, and you may not realize this, D&D will never be gone. That's why people still play OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x aside from 4e. Even if Hasbro locked D&D far and away, we would still have our books! That's right, no ninjas will come and steal your books.
> 
> The OGL and general weak laws regarding copyright and games would ensure that just about anything for D&D could still be produced by those willing, because, let's face it. 5 million people just won't stop loving and playing D&D because Hasbro decides that it's not worth it anymore. So if they close shop, you can be sure that others will take over.




  Please pardon me.  Upset by the other affair, I said things that are incorrect.

  Yes, we still have Dragon and Dungeon Magazine.
  I do wish, that they remained in print form.  Just me.  But we *do* still have the magazines.

  I have no Insider Information.  It is true that everyone I once knew has quit the Hobby, but that is irrelevant.  I hope others are joining in.  Things change, no?
  What I fear, was that Hasbro would simply shelve the copyrights to D&D, as they did for the print versions of Dragon, Dungeon, and some of the settings.  I don't want to see that happen.

  Yes, *we* still have our books.  We can maintain the Hobby as a Cottage Industry forever, basically.
  I want us to continue to be a Mainstream Hobby.  I want D&D to remain a universally known name.  To be honored and the inspiration for other games, for conventions, for a lot of things that have happened previously, and hopefully will still go on happening.  Let's keep D&D a Household Name.

  *I like your post.*  This is the kind of stubborn optimism, and stubborn will to continue, that this Hobby needs.  If we have a whole bunch of people like you, D&D really WILL stick around for the indefinite future.
  Cheers, sir.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Jack99 said:


> Quality or not (I guess that's pretty subjective, so let's agree to disagree), they still exist. Will you agree on that at least? If you do, then saying that they no longer exist is flat out wrong (which was what I was commenting on).
> 
> Cheers




  Yes, they still exist.  I agree with what you are saying.  You are quite right.
  I sincerely hope they will return as print magazines.  Just me.  
  (fond sigh)  Old Timer, indeed.  That's me ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I believe it means an increased interest in your poll.
> 
> I didn't vote the first time.




  I can hope that means increased interest in the game, can't I?
  Be it 4E or 3E or Pathfinder or 2E or 1E or OD&D or Hackmaster or C&C, or Online Magazines, or whatever, if more people are interested, more power to them.  More power to the game.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

BryonD said:


> I'll first point out that I didn't say this represented all players.  I said that the other poll was being used as a counter-point and I consider that very telling.  The "good news" poll is still pretty bad news.
> 
> But yes, in my opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) it has failed to do so.
> 
> I think wotc could have done better by showing more respect for the conventions that had worked well for the game in the past and showing more respect for the level of complexity that the bulk of gamers embrace and find rewarding.  If you woudl like more detail on these items, I'd refer you to hundreds, if not thousands, of other threads over the past 18 months.  It isn't like the issues are a secret.




  I will admit, I miss the gaming conventions.  Especially conventions like AndCon, Three Rivers, and local conventions like CubiCon.
  I remember when MichiCon had hundreds of D&D games.  They have none now, neither RPGA nor home games.

  (sighs)

  Same with a lot of really great FLGSs.  Like the Gamer's Inn, Hobby House, or the Gaming Underground.  Cool places.
  I liked the WOTC Stores, while they lasted.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Edena, are you paying attention? Now _that_ is humor.
> 
> Well struck, Sir Wilder. Well struck.
> 
> WP




  Yes.  I've heard of the show (although when I hear Knight Rider, I think of the Night Rider, and thus Mad Max, and ...)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Jack99 said:


> Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.




  Let's hope not.  A lot of treants and druids would take issue with us.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Brown Jenkin said:


> There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.




  Successful Changeover, in my book, is that more people than ever are interested in the Hobby (in ANY format, including Online Formats ... everything seems to be heading to Cyberspace, anymore ...)
  If more people are joining in the Hobby, that's good enough for me.

  I look at the competition, and it is staggering, and it relies on technologies that did not exist when D&D first came into being in the 60s.
  D&D has a tough row to hoe, as I've said before.
  But you can't kill the spirit of roleplaying, so I - and I've said this before - do believe some form of our Hobby is going to stick around indefinitely.


----------



## DaveMage

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Bingo - assuming the new players buy the books at a rate equal to or greater than the previous customer base. (In other words, the newbies better have a couple DaveMage types in their group.  )




I do wonder how many collector-types have gotten off the train with 4E.  I know some are still there (e.g., Catsclaw227), but I've also seen a few others that have stopped buying as well.  

For the record, though, had they kept all of the traditional D&D fluff, it would have been a lot harder to resist the edition change.  (And extending the OGL to 4E and getting all the publishers on board would have been a huge temptation for me as well.)  I was just looking at my awesome 2E Volo's guides the other day, and realizing that in 3E, they were all still pretty much usable as is.  (This was important to me at the time of the 2E/3E switch.)  With 4e?  Forget it.  Most of the people (and stories) in those guides would be dead in the new timeline.

Also, with the movement towards books with bigger print and less detail (especially in books like the Draconomicon and Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide), the comparitive value still isn't there for me.   When I say I buy into an edition, I really *buy *into an edition.  So for me, the content amount per book matters.  I like 'em packed with info.

But it's OK.  When I win the 300M Powerball(tm) jackpot, I'll buy D&D and make the books I want.    (And then the few people that actually agree with me will be happy too.)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

We are at 1,100 votes.  We have the 1st Changeover Poll beaten by 100 votes.
  I think we can make 2,000 votes, personally.  Let's try for it.  (And show that ENWorld is the great metropolis that I describe it as!  : )  )

  Here are the current results of the poll, as of 1,100 votes:

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%

  Note:  Changeover gained 1%, to 33%, about 200 votes ago, and has maintained this gain since then.  Prior to that, Changeover was at 32% for about 500 votes.


----------



## Jack99

Imaro said:


> Hyperbole?  What hyperbole?
> 
> Honestly, no snark intended, but why is whatever you *feel* defines Dungeon and Dragon magazine any more valid than what someone else does?  There's alot more missing than just it being made of paper,  but in the end what you choose as "defining" characteristics of the magazines PDF's is no more or less valid (in an objective sense) than what characteristics anyone else decides define the mags for themselves.




Your analogy to water and ice was the hyperbole. And while I will not pretend to think that *I* define anything, I just find it very hard to accept that some people really place *being made out of dead trees* as a more defining characteristic than say the brand or the content. But since I am not allowed by the board rules to attribute other motives to my fellow posters, I can't expand on that. Let's just say that I am a sceptic. Especially since the people who claim that its not Dragon and Dungeon anymore seem to be the same people who constantly trash 4e.

Anyway, the OP admitted she was wrong, and it was her I was *talking* to.

Cheers


----------



## BryonD

garyh said:


> Yes, obviously we've had countless 4e vs 3e threads over the last year.  But that's not what I'm getting at.  I'm asking what a successful percent changeover WOULD be, and how WotC could have gotten there.
> 
> Really, what I'm probably getting at is that anything short of 100% conversion would likely be looked at as "failure" by detractors (of course, if 100% converted, there'd be no detractors  ), and highlighting the essential unwinnable situation WotC is in with regards to converting those strongly attached to in previous editions.
> 
> The person who loved 3.x and owned thousands in 3.x product and felt it did everything they needed?  They weren't ever going to convert to a new edition.  There are a lot of those people on EN World, certainly a higher percentage than the general gaming population.



I already answered how I believe they could have done better.  As to how much better is good enough, I don't see much point to the question.  The question certainly attempts to change the subject from my point that the possibility that loses may be as low as approximately one half is being portrayed as good news.

You can create a fiction of detractors calling 100% conversion a failure if you want and then hold that fiction up as a contrast to the reality of 50% conversion being called good news.  It makes no difference to me.  The merit of such a contrast seems rather clear on its face.

And when you speak about ENworld you clearly forget that you are now talking about THIS poll and not the good news poll I was referencing.  It has already been claimed in this thread that one reason things are so much "better" over there is that those voters are not as vested in their collection.  So within context, you final paragraph is completely in error.


----------



## Jasperak

In reply to the talk about Dragon magazine and Dungeon magazine.

The print magazines helped make me feel like I was part of a community. Not only were there fluff and crunch articles, there were advertisements, book reviews, comics, new book releases (not all from WOTC), and fiction. While the fluff and crunch articles were the bread and butter of the magazines, the other information added depth. I read "Order of the Stick" every time it comes out but I don't get the same feeling that I did when I read it in the magazine when it was part of something greater. For me there is no Gestalt feeling when I go to four different websites to get the same stuff that I got in one magazine. Knights of the Dinner Table is more useful to me than the Dragon/Dungeon PDFs for these reasons.

I confess that I like the tactile feel of magazines and comics in hands, but the PDFs do not offer everything that I got from the dead tree versions, like the WOW factor of seeing a cool advert for something new.

I'm sorry for not articulating my thoughts as clearly as I would like; I just needed to put this out there.


----------



## garyh

BryonD said:


> I already answered how I believe they could have done better.  As to how much better is good enough, I don't see much point to the question.  The question certainly attempts to change the subject from my point that the possibility that loses may be as low as approximately one half is being portrayed as good news.
> 
> You can create a fiction of detractors calling 100% conversion a failure if you want and then hold that fiction up as a contrast to the reality of 50% conversion being called good news.  It makes no difference to me.  The merit of such a contrast seems rather clear on its face.
> 
> And when you speak about ENworld you clearly forget that you are now talking about THIS poll and not the good news poll I was referencing.  It has already been claimed in this thread that one reason things are so much "better" over there is that those voters are not as vested in their collection.  So within context, you final paragraph is completely in error.




All the detractors saying these polls mean something bad for or about 4e naturally makes me curious as to what sort of changeover would be considered a success.  If you aren't interested in that question, fair enough.

I don't recall saying anywhere that either poll meant anything in particular, other than arguing with Treebore a few dozen pages ago that internet polls can't be used in any scientific way.  I certainly never said "Wow, look at how many converts there are at RPGNet!  What great news!"


----------



## Roman

garyh said:


> what sort of changeover would be considered a success




That varies by person, but I would say that for me personally the conversion rate would have to be at least 75% for me to even consider to start considering it a success (pun intended) in terms of creating a unified brand experience and establishing the new edition's dominance in the gaming field. A much higher conversion rate may well have been reached by the 4th edition or the real conversion rate may be even lower than this ENWorld poll indicates - we simply don't know - ENWorld numbers are not representative of the gaming population in general and we don't know in which direction they are biased. Also, the conversion rate required for commercial success of the edition may well be much lower than that required to achieve dominance in the gaming field, so that is another thing to consider. There is simply no hard and fast answer to your question just as we don't have any hard and fast data on what the real conversion rate actually is.


----------



## 13garth13

Jack99 said:


> Your analogy to water and ice was the hyperbole. And while I will not pretend to think that *I* define anything, I just find it very hard to accept that some people really place *being made out of dead trees* as a more defining characteristic than say the brand or the content. But since I am not allowed by the board rules to attribute other motives to my fellow posters, I can't expand on that. Let's just say that I am a sceptic. Especially since the people who claim that its not Dragon and Dungeon anymore seem to be the same people who constantly trash 4e.
> 
> Anyway, the OP admitted she was wrong, and it was her I was *talking* to.
> 
> Cheers




If I can't read it on a bus (don't own a laptop), or more importantly, in the WC (any other parents out there will probably confirm that the only moments of privacy you get from a toddler is whilst pondering on the porcelain....and sometimes not even then ) it's not a magazine....you can call it an e-zine and pretend that all of the tactile/sensory stimuli that are attendant with flipping through a *real* book or magazine, but brother, from where I'm sitting, if it's not printed on dead trees and mailed to my mailbox where I can gleefully anticipate its arrival, then it truly isn't a magazine.

From my perspective (and did I mention how much I LOATHE reading PDFs?!?!) Dragon and Dungeon are deader than the creatures of the Burgess Shale.  Content is meaningless for me if I can't read it (and as I don't read PDF's with anything even remotely resembling pleasure.... .......) so thus, I concur with the above opinion that for all intents and purposes (for me, and I certainly don't intend to speak for everybody else on the planet) those great instituions of gaming are _finis_.

YMMV, IMNSHO, etc. etc.

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Imaro

Jack99 said:


> Your analogy to water and ice was the hyperbole. And while I will not pretend to think that *I* define anything,* I just find it very hard to accept that some people really place *being made out of dead trees* as a more defining characteristic than say the brand or the content. * But since I am not allowed by the board rules to attribute other motives to my fellow posters, I can't expand on that. Let's just say that I am a sceptic. Especially since the people who claim that its not Dragon and Dungeon anymore seem to be the same people who constantly trash 4e.
> 
> Anyway, the OP admitted she was wrong, and it was her I was *talking* to.
> 
> Cheers




And yet for those who don't have a computer, credit card access or internet access... it probably was the most defining characteristic since they can no longer enjoy the brand and/or content...


----------



## catsclaw227

DaveMage said:


> I do wonder how many collector-types have gotten off the train with 4E.  I know some are still there (e.g., Catsclaw227), but I've also seen a few others that have stopped buying as well.



Yes, much to the chagrin of my wife, I am hopping along with 4e, though I am not purchasing the 3pp stuff as much as I used to. 

With the economy the way it is (and a new home, wife and child), I am glad that there isn't as much 3PP support as 3.x yet.  I couldn't afford it like I used to!

Even though there isn't "official" support for 3.x, there's still so much awesome stuff -- just read all the "What 3.5 3PP stuff should I buy" threads out there. 

I am very curious what things will look like in about 18 months, when 4e has had 2 years of support, both from WOTC books, DDI, and 3PP.

And to comment about poll types, I don't believe that a public poll creates any more fire for flame wars than private polls.  It appears to me that many posters are generous enough with their opinions one way or the other anyway.

While I am a 4e fan, I am not a 3.x hater by any stretch of the imagination.  That edition brought so much fun that I would be doing all my past players and favorite d20/OGL publishers a disservice by claiming that it sucked.  

Every edition of every RPG I have played had broken/weird/houseruled stuff in it.


----------



## catsclaw227

Imaro said:


> And yet for those who don't have a computer, credit card access or internet access... it probably was the most defining characteristic since they can no longer enjoy the brand and/or content...



I am not sure what it is like in other countries, but in the USA, just having a bank account gives you a debit card with a VISA or Mastercard compatibility. And yes, parents/family can still buy a DDI account for a child without a bank account.


----------



## catsclaw227

13garth13 said:


> If I can't read it on a bus (don't own a laptop), or more importantly, in the WC (any other parents out there will probably confirm that the only moments of privacy you get from a toddler is whilst pondering on the porcelain....and sometimes not even then ) it's not a magazine....you can call it an e-zine and pretend that all of the tactile/sensory stimuli that are attendant with flipping through a *real* book or magazine, but brother, from where I'm sitting, if it's not printed on dead trees and mailed to my mailbox where I can gleefully anticipate its arrival, then it truly isn't a magazine.




Well, by definition, a magazine doesn't have to be printed to be a magazine.  Just check any dictionary and you will see.  But I understand that isn't your point.  Yours is one of physical portability.  But just because you don't like the medium, doesn't make it less of a magazine.



> From my perspective (and did I mention how much I LOATHE reading PDFs?!?!) Dragon and Dungeon are deader than the creatures of the Burgess Shale.  Content is meaningless for me if I can't read it (and as I don't read PDF's with anything even remotely resembling pleasure.... .......) so thus, I concur with the above opinion that for all intents and purposes (for me, and I certainly don't intend to speak for everybody else on the planet) those great instituions of gaming are _finis_.



And this is too bad, because it really has been great (if you like 4e).  Dungeon and Dragon have been chock full of great articles and the adventures are good and getting better.  There are some so-so adventures and some that don't float my boat, but that was the case with the print mag as well.

Have you tried printing it out?  I like to print out just the articles I want to read and sit at my sofa and prep for my games (or sit on the car and just read).  And when I DM my game, I use a laptop, so I have that option as well.


----------



## Imaro

catsclaw227 said:


> I am not sure what it is like in other countries, but in the USA, just having a bank account gives you a debit card with a VISA or Mastercard compatibility. And yes, parents/family can still buy a DDI account for a child without a bank account.




Uhmm.. ok I'm not sure I get your point...I addressed a certain group of people (those without access for some reason or another), are you telling me everyone in the US, (and yes I live in the US) has a credit card or every child's parent in the US wants to put an online subscription on their card for their child.  I think many parents would feel more comfortable giving the child the money to buy a magazine than signing into an online subscription that auto-renews and that's hard to cancel.  As a parent I know I wouldn't let my son use my card for something like that, but we go into the comic store and I'll purchase the comics he wants  You see I never said there weren't people who had access... but you seem to be trying to paint the broad stroke that everyone (at least in the US) does.  Plain and simple.. That's just incorrect.


----------



## catsclaw227

Jasperak said:


> The print magazines helped make me feel like I was part of a community. Not only were there fluff and crunch articles, there were advertisements, book reviews, comics, new book releases (not all from WOTC), and fiction. While the fluff and crunch articles were the bread and butter of the magazines, the other information added depth. I read "Order of the Stick" every time it comes out but I don't get the same feeling that I did when I read it in the magazine when it was part of something greater. For me there is no Gestalt feeling when I go to four different websites to get the same stuff that I got in one magazine. Knights of the Dinner Table is more useful to me than the Dragon/Dungeon PDFs for these reasons.
> 
> I confess that I like the tactile feel of magazines and comics in hands, but the PDFs do not offer everything that I got from the dead tree versions, like the WOW factor of seeing a cool advert for something new.



I can appreciate and respect this opinion.

For me, though, I get more community from being online than by reading a magazine in private.  The Scale Mail letters were no different than a few posts on topic on a typical message board, and in the past 4-6 years, any advertisements I was interested in were already "old" because I knew about the product from being online.  The small business ads were kinda neat, but really just something to skim and smile once in a while.  I get that far more often online, and I can get a more varied set of articles/blogs/etc.

I want Dungeon and Dragon for the utility it provides for me, in game.  Maybe this is where I differ from other posters in this thread.   I get my community from EnWorld and other forums/sites/blogs.  I want my Dungeon and Dragon to be my game aids.


----------



## catsclaw227

Imaro said:


> catsclaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what it is like in other countries, but in the USA, just having a bank account gives you a debit card with a VISA or Mastercard compatibility. And yes, parents/family can still buy a DDI account for a child without a bank account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmm.. ok I'm not sure I get your point...I addressed a certain group of people (those without access for some reason or another), are you telling me everyone in the US, (and yes I live in the US) has a credit card or every child's parent in the US wants to put an online subscription on their card for their child.  I think many parents would feel more comfortable giving the child the money to buy a magazine than signing into an online subscription that auto-renews and that's hard to cancel.  As a parent I know I wouldn't let my son use my card for something like that, but we go into the comic store and I'll purchase the comics he wants  You see I never said there weren't people who had access... but you seem to be trying to paint the broad stroke that everyone (at least in the US) does.  Plain and simple.. That's just incorrect.
Click to expand...


I didn't paint any broad strokes, nor did I state that everyone in the US has a credit card.  I was simply pointing out that, in this day and age, the ability to buy online is extremely accessible.  Do you disagree with this notion?

As a parent, I would prefer to go online and buy my kid an online subscription.  That is my preference. I am not claiming that is another parent's preference.

And, just to make it clear, it is NOT hard to cancel the auto-renew.  If you got to WOTC's site or read any of the posts where the difficulty of canceling is brought up, you can find plenty of links posted all over that say how to do it, and it takes all of about 5 minutes of effort, MAX.  It's easier to cancel your autorenew than to take back an article of clothing from Old Navy for a different size, and that is really easy to do.


----------



## Imaro

catsclaw227 said:


> I didn't paint any broad strokes, nor did I state that everyone in the US has a credit card.  I was simply pointing out that, in this day and age, the ability to buy online is extremely accessible.  Do you disagree with this notion?
> 
> As a parent, I would prefer to go online and buy my kid an online subscription.  That is my preference. I am not claiming that is another parent's preference.
> 
> And, just to make it clear, it is NOT hard to cancel the auto-renew.  If you got to WOTC's site or read any of the posts where the difficulty of canceling is brought up, you can find plenty of links posted all over that say how to do it, and it takes all of about 5 minutes of effort, MAX.  It's easier to cancel your autorenew than to take back an article of clothing from Old Navy for a different size, and that is really easy to do.




Then... once again, I still don't understand what the point of you quoting my statement and the reply you posted.  I never said no one could access online buying, I simply stated for those who cannot, the physical form and it's availability were a defining characteristic.  Do you agree with this or not?

   Perhaps I'm looking for a connection, since you quoted me and made general statements, yet now are stating what is your preference, and I never commented on your preference so your posts are confusing me slightly.

As far as how easy or hard it is to cancel... plenty of posters on WotC boards who have subscribed ... would disagree with you .  I wouldn't know personally but the number of complaints on their boards, and the answers received make me skeptical of the validity of your statement.  YMMV of course.  Have you cancelled your subscription?  And if not, how do you know how hard or easy it is?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Hey, we've beaten 1,100 votes, in this poll.  

  No change in the results, as usual, but that vote count continues to rise.

  With this kind of interest in the Hobby, it sure as heck is going to continue!  : )


----------



## Jasperak

catsclaw227 said:


> I can appreciate and respect this opinion.
> 
> For me, though, I get more community from being online than by reading a magazine in private.  The Scale Mail letters were no different than a few posts on topic on a typical message board, and in the past 4-6 years, any advertisements I was interested in were already "old" because I knew about the product from being online.  The small business ads were kinda neat, but really just something to skim and smile once in a while.  I get that far more often online, and I can get a more varied set of articles/blogs/etc.
> 
> I want Dungeon and Dragon for the utility it provides for me, in game.  Maybe this is where I differ from other posters in this thread.   I get my community from EnWorld and other forums/sites/blogs.  I want my Dungeon and Dragon to be my game aids.




I was sure when I made the original post that I was not articulating my feelings about WOTC's e-zines v. print Dungeon & Dragon properly. Truthfully I don't think I care enough to type a long essay about my feelings, but I will try and make a few points.

Your thoughts about the e-zines are different from mine and I respect that, but what's done is done. WOTC took away something that got me into my FLGS twice a month; you know the place where you can meet gamers face-to-face. My FLGS also stopped carrying Knights of the Dinner Table, so I now have no motivation to go to my FLGS. Nothing to look forward to. No face-to-face community. Right now my only link to the RPG community is online and well, why bother. I am having more fun right now with Guild Wars than any edition of D&D. 

There just seems something so wrong with a hobby that is designed for face-to-face play but only gets support online. I can order my books online for less than B&M stores. I can only get my monthly gaming aids online now. The RPGA sucks badly in my area and forces you to play an edition I don't like.

I know I sound like a big crybaby, but I am starting to question why I even bother. This all started when they shut down the print mags I have known for 20+ years.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Jasperak said:


> The print magazines helped make me feel like I was part of a community. Not only were there fluff and crunch articles, there were advertisements, book reviews, comics, *new book releases (not all from WOTC)*, and fiction.



Hells, yes [emphasis mine]. Several people I know used to find out about third party books this way, for the most part. They might never have discovered a number of inestimably useful items, if not for Dragon and Dungeon _print magazines_.

My favourite bit of anecdotal 'evidence' (really, more an account than evidence of anything that springs to mind, mind you) is that I used to find Dragon and Dungeon magazines in places like a tiny newsagent, in a tiny seaside village, over the other side of the world from the USA. Regularly.

Magazine, not magazine, whatever. They are a totally different beast now, in numerous ways. Personally, I still think it's a shame that things went this way. And a mistake, what's more. But time will tell.




> I'm sorry for not articulating my thoughts as clearly as I would like



No need, and it seemed clear enough to me. In that order.


----------



## cildarith

13garth13 said:


> If I can't read it on a bus (don't own a laptop), or more importantly, in the WC (any other parents out there will probably confirm that the only moments of privacy you get from a toddler is whilst pondering on the porcelain....and sometimes not even then ) it's not a magazine....you can call it an e-zine and pretend that all of the tactile/sensory stimuli that are attendant with flipping through a *real* book or magazine, but brother, from where I'm sitting, if it's not printed on dead trees and mailed to my mailbox where I can gleefully anticipate its arrival, then it truly isn't a magazine.
> 
> From my perspective (and did I mention how much I LOATHE reading PDFs?!?!) Dragon and Dungeon are deader than the creatures of the Burgess Shale.  Content is meaningless for me if I can't read it (and as I don't read PDF's with anything even remotely resembling pleasure.... .......) so thus, I concur with the above opinion that for all intents and purposes (for me, and I certainly don't intend to speak for everybody else on the planet) those great instituions of gaming are _finis_.
> 
> YMMV, IMNSHO, etc. etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin




Well, you speak pretty well for me.  The lack of *in print* magazines is a fairly significant part of the reason I have very little interest in 4E.  The "magazines" may not be dead and gone, but they are to me (and D&D along with it).


----------



## joethelawyer

cildarith said:


> Well, you speak pretty well for me.  The lack of *in print* magazines is a fairly significant part of the reason I have very little interest in 4E.  The "magazines" may not be dead and gone, but they are to me (and D&D along with it).





I have some hopes for Kobold Quarterly become what Dragon used to be, but I think they are still deciding if it will support 4e, 3e, some combination of the above, or whatever.  Anyone hear any news on that front, BTW?


----------



## Jasperak

joethelawyer said:


> I have some hopes for Kobold Quarterly become what Dragon used to be, but I think they are still deciding if it will support 4e, 3e, some combination of the above, or whatever.  Anyone hear any news on that front, BTW?




I hope they support both editions and their derivatives as much as possible.


----------



## Jasperak

cildarith said:


> Well, you speak pretty well for me.  The lack of *in print* magazines is a fairly significant part of the reason I have very little interest in 4E.  The "magazines" may not be dead and gone, but they are to me (and D&D along with it).




Years ago I abhorred the thought of 3e, but the previews that Dragon had in its pages sold me. I looked in its pages and thought cool, maybe I should look at this new edition and see what they changed/fixed. Being able to flip through the pages actually got me to look at the new edition they are offering. 

I will NEVER pay for an online subscription for a product sight-unseen.


----------



## catsclaw227

Imaro said:


> Then... once again, I still don't understand what the point of you quoting my statement and the reply you posted. I never said no one could access online buying, I simply stated for those who cannot, the physical form and it's availability were a defining characteristic. Do you agree with this or not?
> 
> Perhaps I'm looking for a connection, since you quoted me and made general statements, yet now are stating what is your preference, and I never commented on your preference so your posts are confusing me slightly.



I think you are reading way more into my post and the quoted section.  I quoted the whole sentence that mentioned about people without credit cards because I didn't want to quote a sentence fragment, or a few unconnected words).  I simply tried to make the point that buying online is very easy (at least in the USA) if you have a bank account. Nothing more, nothing less.  Please don't try to infer more than I stated.  

Later, when I had to explain post and why it was relevant, I stated what the intentions of my post were, and then skipped a line, created a new paragraph and started another thought, with my preferences.  Maybe I should have made two different posts?

Yes, I agree that for those that have no online access, and cannot buy online for whatever the reason, then the physical product is a defining characteristic.  But that's the case for just about anything that can be bought or sold. Music is a good example.  For those without online access or a credit card, buying an mp3 song or album might not work, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's still a song.  Some people demand liner notes and reading lyrics when they listen, so they prefer physical CDs.  But the music is still the music.



Imaro said:


> As far as how easy or hard it is to cancel... plenty of posters on WotC boards who have subscribed ... would disagree with you .  I wouldn't know personally but the number of complaints on their boards, and the answers received make me skeptical of the validity of your statement.  YMMV of course.  Have you cancelled your subscription?  And if not, how do you know how hard or easy it is?



BTW, I was talking about canceling auto-renew.  And yes, I have disabled auto-renew.  It took about 30 seconds to click two links, log-in and then choose to cancel auto-renew.  I got an email immediately, then another in 2 days, confirming.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I would suggest that the discussion on Dragon be forked.  (After all, I don't have a poll on Dragon.)


----------



## Jasperak




----------



## Dannyalcatraz

13garth13 said:


> If I can't read it on a bus  <snip> then it truly isn't a magazine.
> 
> From my perspective (and did I mention how much I LOATHE reading PDFs?!?!) Dragon and Dungeon are deader than the creatures of the Burgess Shale...




Who are you?  Me?



> Have you tried printing it out?




That's just shifting the cost of printing from the publisher (who has economies of scale) to the consumer (who does not).

I simply won't be a party to that.

I won't get the same quality inks or binding as I would if WotC or Paizo were doing the printing, unless I have it professionally done...which costs extra.



> *catsclaw*
> I am not sure what it is like in other countries, but in the USA, just having a bank account gives you a debit card with a VISA or Mastercard compatibility. And yes, parents/family can still buy a DDI account for a child without a bank account.




That's not true.  I have a few bank accounts and I have NO debit cards...and the last time I checked, Dallas/Fort Worth is part of the USA.


----------



## Zustiur

Firstly, I apologize for returning to this so many posts later, but as the person who sparked the problem in the first place, I feel I must respond to make my intent more clear.


Edena_of_Neith said:


> You find offense at a few posts about Star Fleet Battles?  (Not Star Trek ... the two are almost totally unrelated, except the names.)
> You find offense at a few light hearted posts, when there is a real threat of our Hobby collapsing, everyone knows it, and I choose not to talk about it because everyone knows it, has heard it over and over, has seen it happen with Dragon and Dungeon, and for heaven's sake haven't they had enough of it?




Not knowing ANYTHING about Star Fleet Battles, I cannot see the relevance your comparison is intended to bring. I was commenting on why you had not received the response you hoped for. Your three posts in response to mine strike me as an over-reaction, but I'm happy to let that matter drop. 

To take what you say as the example however, I could just as easily draw the comparison to the Starseige: Tribes franchise, which has completely lost it's original audience due to the same sorts of design decisions present in 4E, but had I done so, I would not have expected many people in the thread to understand what I was on about.

As mentioned, I could not see the humour in your posts about ECM, not because they lacked humour, nor because they were in the wrong thread, but simply because I didn't understand a word of what was said in them. I couldn't draw any comparison between the posts and what this thread was about. I couldn't see the humour, and wanted you to understand that.

I can understand exactly where you coming from, but not how you got there. Off topic posts are fine. Humours posts are fine, even necessary. Repeated, long,  off topic posts in one thread... that's just something I'm not used to seeing at ENWorld.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Again, rant over.
> I just had to say all that, get it off my chest.



*THIS *I understand!



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I, and I think most people, really cannot discern anything humorous in those ECM essays you posted. Please be aware of this difference in our perspectives.



That's what I intended to say. Apparently I missed the mark.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I believe (just me) that this means an increase in interest in the game.



I agree with you on this also. I applaud you for starting this poll. I've paid attention to this thread almost since it began, and keep coming back to ENWorld to see if anyone has updated it. I would argue that increased interest in the poll, is in itself a sign of increased interest in (the state of) the game.

I apologize for causing any offense with my original outburst.


----------



## Zustiur

13garth13 said:


> From my perspective (and did I mention how much I LOATHE reading PDFs?!?!)



I recently bought a laser printer for the sole purpose of printing out the Pathfinder pdf. I know how you feel.
Unless I'm mistaken, DDI doesn't allow you to purchase individual issues. That is the killer for me. I don't subscribe to magazines, I pick issues that interest me. If I cannot do that, the magazine is 'dead' to me. As it only covers 4E, I have no use for it anyway.


----------



## BryonD

garyh said:


> I don't recall saying anywhere that either poll meant anything in particular, other than arguing with Treebore a few dozen pages ago that internet polls can't be used in any scientific way.  I certainly never said "Wow, look at how many converts there are at RPGNet!  What great news!"



And if I had ever claimed that *YOU* had said that, then your point would be relevant.  

If you agree with me that both polls are some degree of bad news then good.
If you disagree then you are now arguing on a dishonest basis.
It makes no difference to the point which is the case.

You may dispute the validity of the polls at all but:
A) that still doesn't change my point that the one being portrayed as better is still pretty bad so the defensive arguments themselves are telling in regard to general perception of even the pro-4e side.  My whole point was about how the pro-4e side perceives the results and what that says of their expectations, it has nothing to do with the quantifiable precision of the data. 

And

B) There is no data to dispute that the polls are in the right ballpark.  And there are a whole lot of people whose meatspace experiences fit close enough with the results to find them a reasonable barometer.


----------



## catsclaw227

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's not true.  I have a few bank accounts and I have NO debit cards...and the last time I checked, Dallas/Fort Worth is part of the USA.



I am just guessing here, but is it possible that you opted-out of the debit cards?  I just ran a few searches - certainly not comprehensive - and didn't find one bank or credit union that didn't offer the debit card as part of a typical checking, money market or savings account.  (Obviously, I wasn't talking about investment accounts or similar  )

Anyway, I don't want to derail the topic of the changeover anymore...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

catsclaw227 said:


> I am just guessing here, but is it possible that you opted-out of the debit cards?




Nope.

They were not an option with the particular types of (simple, no frills, no fees) checking and savings accounts I chose at my institution.

There were _other_ checking/savings products offered that did come with debit cards, but not the ones I chose.


----------



## garyh

BryonD said:


> And if I had ever claimed that *YOU* had said that, then your point would be relevant.
> 
> If you agree with me that both polls are some degree of bad news then good.
> If you disagree then you are now arguing on a dishonest basis.
> It makes no difference to the point which is the case.
> 
> You may dispute the validity of the polls at all but:
> A) that still doesn't change my point that the one being portrayed as better is still pretty bad so the defensive arguments themselves are telling in regard to general perception of even the pro-4e side.  My whole point was about how the pro-4e side perceives the results and what that says of their expectations, it has nothing to do with the quantifiable precision of the data.
> 
> And
> 
> B) There is no data to dispute that the polls are in the right ballpark.  And there are a whole lot of people whose meatspace experiences fit close enough with the results to find them a reasonable barometer.




So basically it comes down to people who like 4e feeling there's more going on than self-selected internet polls can account for, and those who don't like 4e finding any way possible to say HA-HA!

Wow, what a surprise.  And it's been going on for over thirty pages...


----------



## BryonD

garyh said:


> So basically it comes down to people who like 4e feeling there's more going on than self-selected internet polls can account for, and those who don't like 4e finding any way possible to say HA-HA!
> 
> Wow, what a surprise.  And it's been going on for over thirty pages...



Hmm, pretty much absolutely no. Hell, that even fails to account for the very point that you replied to.

But if that is what you get out of it then so be it.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Eh, I can see both PoV... It's sort of like water and ice.  I mean you can have your ice cube and it is *ice*... or you can have your water/melted *ice*.  Sorta like you can have your magazines...Paper, physical, collectible... and you can have your PDF's... which lack some of the fundamental characteristics of a paper magazine, but have new characteristics.




I think your example is off.

What you're saying is like someone saying ice is no longer H2O because they wanted a liquid. Ice and water are the same substance, just in diferent states. Same is true with dragon/dungeon.

They are still the same substance (a collection of articles, and ideas for use in your D&D game.) They just currently exist in a state some do not prefer.

I for one prefer it greatly. I wouldn't object if they were able to do both a print and digital version at the same time... But if it's one or the other- digital all the way.


----------



## 13garth13

catsclaw227 said:


> Well, by definition, a magazine doesn't have to be printed to be a magazine.  Just check any dictionary and you will see.  But I understand that isn't your point.  Yours is one of physical portability.  But just because you don't like the medium, doesn't make it less of a magazine.




Hi there; first off, I will quite willingly concede that since it is still technically a published periodical it is also still a magazine.  However, (if you'll permit me to indulge in hyperbole of the highest {lowest?} order) this would also be the case if it were scripted in dog faeces on scrolls of human skin.....which would also lose me as a customer in as equally efficacious a manner as switching to PDFs 



catsclaw227 said:


> And this is too bad, because it really has been great (if you like 4e).  Dungeon and Dragon have been chock full of great articles and the adventures are good and getting better.  There are some so-so adventures and some that don't float my boat, but that was the case with the print mag as well.




Well, since I don't play using 4E (a little white lie; I do in fact _play_ in a 4E game {whether I merely tolerate it because of the presence of friends is inconsequential I suppose}, but since I VASTLY prefer to DM rather than play, and the game which I run is a 3.5/Pathfinder blend, I still think of myself as a non-convert) then a subscription holds even less appeal than if I were to merely take the electronic nature of the beast into consideration.

Note that while it was free in the early days of electronic only (prior to the 4E switch over) should it have been pay-only while it was 3.5, I still wouldn't have subscribed due to my abhorence of online "publications", so believe me when I say that the primary objection is not edition but medium.




catsclaw227 said:


> Have you tried printing it out?  I like to print out just the articles I want to read and sit at my sofa and prep for my games (or sit on the car and just read).  And when I DM my game, I use a laptop, so I have that option as well.




As someone else has pointed out, that merely adds a time, cost and yes, even a sensory penalty to me.  Time because a 90 odd page document (and I don't know if that is in fact the actual page count.....someone with a subscription will have to drop in and let me know the true page count these days)  takes a while to print, cost because to print it with a decent enough quality to be a good read would require a fair amount of ink (unless I decide that somehow a laserjet printer is a swell addition to the budget, right up there with diapers and wipes.....I'm sure I can justify that to the better half ) every month, and sensory because flipping through some loose pages (and if I get them bound that's even more time/expense) is nowhere even in the ballpark as "pleasurable" as flipping through a book or magazine that is professionally bound......for some reason it just doesn't have the same _feel_....I can't explain why that is the case, it just is.....it feels....I dunno, cheap and inconsequential, something ephemeral that I'm going to toss in the recycling bin within a few minutes of reading it as if it had no real value beyond the immediate....and it sure wouldn't have the same feel leafing through some loose pages while on the john, you know?

Hell, I honestly can't put into words why I prefer a _real_ book/magazine to something I just printed out myself (although I will clearly grant you that it's still better than a bloody PDF!), but maybe that's just it....an awful lot of this aversion is gut level, instinctual stuff, and it may not make any logical sense (the words are still the same, arent' they?!) but that is still the case.

Anyhoo, the original poster has stated that they would prefer the topic to be forked, so if anyone wants to continue the print versus PDF discussion, then by all means please fork it as a courtesy to E_o_N (although I'm not sure what could be gained, due to the emotional rather than logical nature of the issue.....other than perhaps a new poll of who prefers print versus PDF).

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> I think your example is off.
> 
> What you're saying is like someone saying ice is no longer H2O because they wanted a liquid. Ice and water are the same substance, just in diferent states. Same is true with dragon/dungeon.
> 
> They are still the same substance (a collection of articles, and ideas for use in your D&D game.) They just currently exist in a state some do not prefer.
> 
> I for one prefer it greatly. I wouldn't object if they were able to do both a print and digital version at the same time... But if it's one or the other- digital all the way.




No it's not like someone saying ice is no longer H2O because they wanted a liquid.  Dragon and Dungeon are not composed of the same columns, features, cartoons, etc. that they were so it is disingenuous to make it seem like they have a known composition (except in the broadest of senses) and then claim the only change has been from paper to electronic.  In fact I would go further and comment that some of the internal changes (no  letters, no advertisements, etc.) have arisen because of the change in format, whether you like them or not.

 I mean according to your definition of what Dragon and Dungeon are "a collection of articles, and ideas for use in your D&D game."   They could have created a blog with a single poster writing his house rules on D&D each month and it would be the same Dungeon and Dragon magazines as before.  That's why your definition is so broad as to be meaningless.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I merely made the suggestion to protect the thread.  The Admins will have a problem with us, if the thread is sufficiently side-tracked.
  The issue of Dragon Magazine, could do that.  It is a full issue by itself.  It deserves it's own thread (or many threads.)  It is a whole, vast topic unto itself, and this thread could not contain the vast amount of discussion that could go on about our Flagship Magazine.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(blinks)

  I could not find the RPGnet Changeover Poll.  It is still there?
  Anyone have the results, and the number of votes, on that poll?


----------



## garyh

Imaro said:


> No it's not like someone saying ice is no longer H2O because they wanted a liquid.  Dragon and Dungeon are not composed of the same columns, features, cartoons, etc. that they were so it is disingenuous to make it seem like they have a known composition (except in the broadest of senses) and then claim the only change has been from paper to electronic.  In fact I would go further and comment that some of the internal changes (no  letters, no advertisements, etc.) have arisen because of the change in format, whether you like them or not.




Dragon and Dungeon have ALWAYS had a shifting lineup of features.  I've been following (un)reason's excellent read-through of Dragon, and the magazine has constantly had changes.  Holding up the end of the print run of Dragon and saying "It doesn't have these exact features" isn't fair.  Dragon still has new rules, focus articles about different classes, races, and monsters, articles about locations, etc.

I'll not get into the PDF/dead tree debate.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> No it's not like someone saying ice is no longer H2O because they wanted a liquid.  Dragon and Dungeon are not composed of the same columns, features, cartoons, etc. that they were so it is disingenuous to make it seem like they have a known composition (except in the broadest of senses) and then claim the only change has been from paper to electronic.  In fact I would go further and comment that some of the internal changes (no  letters, no advertisements, etc.) have arisen because of the change in format, whether you like them or not.




Sure, there were more changes then the biggest change (going from physical to digital) but the layout is for the most part the same. We also have a lot of the same articles and writers that were in the magazine for years.

If changes to some articles or comics are enough to make it no longer dragon./dungeon then when Paizo took over it was no longer dragon or dungeon. Hell then the magazine ended many times durring it's lifespan!



> I mean according to your definition of what Dragon and Dungeon are "a collection of articles, and ideas for use in your D&D game."   They could have created a blog with a single poster writing his house rules on D&D each month and it would be the same Dungeon and Dragon magazines as before.  That's why your definition is so broad as to be meaningless.




Yeah my basic definition probably was a bit broad. Fine.

Sheesh do we really need to go through this? Sure you can call anything meaningless if you choose to ignore what the person is saying!

At heart the magazine seeks to do the same thing the paper format did. You don't like the format maybe but that doesn't change what the basic idea of the magazine is.  

I have no issue with someone saying: This isn't what I want out of dragon/dungeon. It needs to be in paper for me to purchase it.

Fine, that's your choice.

I have issue with someone saying: This is no longer dragon/dungeon because it's not in paper format. 

That is akin to someone saying this is no longer H20 because it's not in solid form.


----------



## Imaro

garyh said:


> Dragon and Dungeon have ALWAYS had a shifting lineup of features.  I've been following (un)reason's excellent read-through of Dragon, and the magazine has constantly had changes.  Holding up the end of the print run of Dragon and saying "It doesn't have these exact features" isn't fair.  Dragon still has new rules, focus articles about different classes, races, and monsters, articles about locations, etc.
> 
> I'll not get into the PDF/dead tree debate.




And thus you've explained exactly why what is a "defining characteristic" of the magazines is so subjective (or has to be so broadly defined) that it becomes pointless, and why it is erroneous for another to try and tell someone what is or isn't a defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon for them.  I'm through with this subject as it really is sidetracking the thread and I don't want to do that.


----------



## Wicht

Edena_of_Neith said:


> (blinks)
> 
> I could not find the RPGnet Changeover Poll.  It is still there?
> Anyone have the results, and the number of votes, on that poll?




Here you go.


----------



## Derren

Interesting a few days ago "No Change" hardly reached 20% over at RPG.net and now its 33%.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

The results of the RPGnet poll are:

  252 votes

  Changeover:  56%
  No Changeover:  34%
  Partial Changeover:  10%
  Option 6:  13%

  Note now ...

  The First Changeover Poll, here on ENWorld, received 990 votes.
  The Second Changeover Poll, is at 1,138 votes, and climbing (and still, in a shorter amount of time than during the 1st poll.)

  This difference between the two ENWorld polls is 148 votes, and climbing.  The entire vote count of the RPGnet poll is 252 votes.

  In summary, we will soon have a greater vote count difference between the First and Second Changeover Polls, here on ENWorld, than the entire vote sent into the RPGnet poll.

  I think that the people over on RPGnet really aren't that interested in the subject, frankly.  
  Does that mean they are not really that interested in D&D either?  Beats me.  Just not interested in the editions subject.
  I think that here, on ENWorld, there is a tremendous amount of interest, and interest in general in the Hobby has increased.


----------



## Wicht

Edena_of_Neith said:


> In summary, we will soon have a greater vote count difference between the First and Second Changeover Polls, here on ENWorld, than the entire vote sent into the RPGnet poll.
> 
> I think that the people over on RPGnet really aren't that interested in the subject, frankly.
> Does that mean they are not really that interested in D&D either?  Beats me.  Just not interested in the editions subject.
> I think that here, on ENWorld, there is a tremendous amount of interest, and interest in general in the Hobby has increased.




I think you are over analyzing and making hasty judgements.  It could well be that they simply have a smaller pool of active people.  The percentage of people that vote in a poll must be equal to or less than the number of people who see the poll.  

Furthermore, you do realize that the longer your poll goes on, the less reliable it is don't you?  Polls works best as a snapshot of opinion at a particular moment of time.  By extending that moment and not allowing people to change their vote, it becomes harder to read the attitude of the people who voted because there is the potential of opinion change among the early voters.


----------



## catsclaw227

It is also possible that the RPG.net poll hasn't been bumped regularly with posts about Star Fleet Battles.  That is how I perceived all the nonsensical off-topic posts.  They were just cleverly disguised bumps to keep the poll at the top of the page.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

catsclaw227 said:


> It is also possible that the RPG.net poll hasn't been bumped regularly with posts about Star Fleet Battles.  That is how I perceived all the nonsensical off-topic posts.  They were just cleverly disguised bumps to keep the poll at the top of the page.



If so, at the very least you gotta admire the dedication.  That was a crazy buncha typing.


Jeff


----------



## catsclaw227

Jeff Wilder said:


> If so, at the very least you gotta admire the dedication.  That was a crazy buncha typing.



Dude, you just made me blow granola and milk out my nose. 

Sometimes, eating and reading EnWorld at the same time is rough on the sinuses.

And yet, I am guilty of bumping the thread as well.  

( I just can't win today... )


----------



## Brown Jenkin

catsclaw227 said:


> And yet, I am guilty of bumping the thread as well.




Dude, quit bumping the thread.

Doh!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

catsclaw227 said:


> It is also possible that the RPG.net poll hasn't been bumped regularly with posts about Star Fleet Battles.  That is how I perceived all the nonsensical off-topic posts.  They were just cleverly disguised bumps to keep the poll at the top of the page.




  If I wanted to simply bump this thread, I would have bumped it.  Ala:  bump.  Get it?  Bump!  I did that many times with the First Changeover Poll, which ran far longer than this one has, so far.

  There was no need for me to bump this thread.  Everyone has been too busy arguing over 3E and 4E and other subjects, for it not to be bumped.  All *I* did was try to add a few light hearted posts concerning another game, marked Off-Topic, which I thought some of those reading this thread might appreciate ... since the game in question was quite popular, and is remembered with fondness by many.

  As for the RPGnet poll, we got more votes than it has gotten in total, within the first 2 days of polling here.  No bumping needed.  Merely an avalanche of opinion.
  In the first 5 days, we got 3 times the number of votes the RPGnet poll has gotten.  Again, no bumping needed.  I didn't have to say anything.  Just a continued avalanche of opinion.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

1153 votes, and:

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%

  I never claimed this poll was accurate.  Heck, I never claimed it was even relevant.

  However, I do believe that the more votes we get, the better, because it indicates interest in the hobby.  So yes, I really do enjoy watching the vote count rise - every new vote is a vote for the hobby itself (regardless of edition) in my book.
  If the poll received 2,000 votes, nothing would make me happier.  3,000.  4,000.  5,000.  10,000.  More votes means more people interested in the game.

  So what if they like or dislike 4E (now), or 3E (now), or Pathfinder (now), or some other edition (now) ?
  They will be interested in 5E (later), 4E (later,) 3E (later), OD&D (later), other editions (later), similar games (later.)
  That's my take.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Scribble

You also can't vote there if you're not logged in.

You can vote here if you're not logged in.

Whether that says we have a lot of people here who aren't members but still like to vote in polls, or lots of people are doing the log out to vote for your favorite answer more then once trick... I can't answer.


----------



## evilbob

Do you (OP) have a link to your original poll?  I was wondering how the numbers were different.


----------



## hewligan

Edena_of_Neith said:


> ...
> However, I do believe that the more votes we get, the better, because it indicates interest in the hobby.  So yes, I really do enjoy watching the vote count rise - every new vote is a vote for the hobby itself (regardless of edition) in my book.
> If the poll received 2,000 votes, nothing would make me happier.  3,000.  4,000.  5,000.  10,000.  More votes means more people interested in the game.
> ...




I personally think you are reading way too much into things. First of all, this poll represents little, and unfortunately represents less and less over time. As someone mentioned above, polls work best as a snapshot of opinion. The longer they are open the more noise you are likely to get. Also, your poll's margin of statistical error does not change much once you reach a certain point.

Then there is the thing about RPG.net and comparing it to here. ENWorld was consumed for quite a while with edition wars. ENWorld is a DnD site, first and foremost. RPG.net covers many systems, and thus the people that visit that site are not identical to the people that visit this site (although clearly there is some cross-over). You have the edition-war fanatics on here (and yes, things have calmed down nicely now) that you will just not get to the same degree on RPG.net.

And then we move on to the fact that you now seem to be consumed by this poll and thread. You seem afraid to let it fall off the front page. You have invested in it some strange importance, as if it is now a proxy for the entire health of our hobby. It is nothing of the sort. The length of a single thread on ENWorld can, in no way, indicate the importance or health of our hobby. 

ENWorld has (and I quote from the main page of this website) "Over 80,000 members and counting!"

That is one proxy of the health of this site, and perhaps from that one could infer to a small degree the health of a single segment (DnD) of the hobby. Of course, even that is mislead as many of those accounts will be inactive or duplicates.

So please, can we let this thread slowly sink to its natural place and stop the redundant bumping and rather far fetched claims for it. I know you are proud of the success of the poll, and I even voted in it, so I am not dissing your work, but I would prefer if it could naturally slip off the front page of the forum list now that its useful purpose has been spent.

Grumpy rant over!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

evilbob said:


> Do you (OP) have a link to your original poll?  I was wondering how the numbers were different.




  Can someone pull it up?  The question has been asked.
  Put up the link, we can compare both polls, and then if people then wish, I can call this poll.

  EDIT:  

  I make no far fetched claims for this poll (nor have I ... go back and look.
  I have made some *wishful thinking.*  
  My wishful thinking, my *hope*, is that it means people are increasingly interested in the hobby.  (I do hope I'm right on that.  We can always use good news like that.)


----------



## Mark

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Can someone pull it up?  The question has been asked.
> Put up the link, we can compare both polls, and then if people then wish, I can call this poll.




http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/235481-changeover-poll.html


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Ok, here is the First Changeover Poll.  *Quite notably, 52 new votes have been cast in this poll* in the last 8 weeks, bringing the vote tally on that poll from 953 to 1,005.
  The results of that poll are thus altered a bit, but they are still worth having a look at.

  Here are the complete results for all three Changeover Polls, so you can make any comparisons you would desire to make.

  -

  The First ENWorld Changeover Poll, with 953 votes cast in July 2008 and August 2008, and 52 votes cast in December 2008 and January 2009

  Changeover:  37%
  No Changeover:  49%
  Partial Changeover:  14%
  Option 6:  22%

  Complete Results (see below)

  -

  The Second ENWorld Changeover Poll, with 1,155 votes cast in December 2008 and January 2009, and new votes still being cast.

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%

  Complete Results:  (see below)

  -

  Here are the results of the RPGnet Changeover Poll, with 254 votes cast in January of 2009.
  I want to note that this poll has received no new votes within the last 3 days.

  Changeover:  55%
  No Changeover:  33%
  Partial Changeover:  12%
  Option 6:  13%

  Complete Results:  (see below)

  -

  The First ENWorld Changeover Poll, 953 votes cast in July and August of 2008, 52 votes cast in December of 2008 and January of 2009 :

View Poll Results: Changeover Edition to Edition of D&D Poll
Complete Changeover: All 4E played now, no earlier editions of D&D 		283 	28.16%
Largely over: Mostly 4E played now, some earlier edition play 		89 	8.86%
Half over: Half 4E played now, half earlier edition play 		59 	5.87%
Partial Changeover: Some 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		27 	2.69%
Slight Changeover: A little 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		51 	5.07%
No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play 		222 	22.09%
No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play 		274 	27.26%
Voters: 1005. You have already voted on this poll

  -

  The Second ENWorld Changeover Poll, with 1,155 votes cast in December of 2008 and January of 2009, and votes still being cast :

  View Poll Results: Changeover Poll
Complete Changeover: All 4E played now, no earlier editions of D&D 		311 	26.93%
Largely over: Mostly 4E played now, some earlier edition play 		74 	6.41%
Half over: Half 4E played now, half earlier edition play 		48 	4.16%
Partial Changeover: Some 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		19 	1.65%
Slight Changeover: A little 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		34 	2.94%
No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play 		356 	30.82%
No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play 		313 	27.10%
Voters: 1155. You have already voted on this poll

  -

  The RPGnet Changeover Poll, with 254 votes cast in January of 2009.

  Complete Changeover: All 4E played now, no earlier editions of D&D  	   	114  	44.88%
Largely over: Mostly 4E played now, some earlier edition play 		27 	10.63%
Half over: Half 4Eplayed now, half earlier edition play 		9 	3.54%
Partial Changeover: Some 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		9 	3.54%
Slight Changeover: A little 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play 		10 	3.94%
No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play 		34 	13.39%
No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play 		51 	20.08%
Voters: 254. You may not vote on this poll

  Thank you, Mark, for giving me the link to the First Changeover Poll.  Cheers to you, sir.
  Wicht, thank you for the link to the RPGnet poll.  Cheers to you, too.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I still declare the winner to be the Game of Dungeons and Dragons, and All Similar Games Thereof.  : )


----------



## evilbob

So the end results of two non-random samples that are statistically close to meaningless are:

6 months later:  slightly fewer people are still on the fence, and slightly more folks have gone back to 3.5, but generally no one has changed their mind.

Internet axiom that you can never change anyone's mind:  STILL TRUE!


----------



## Dragon Snack

Slightly?  49% to 58% is _slightly_ more?

Remember, it was the 3.x people who were supposed to be the ones who would "change their minds"...


----------



## Mark

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Thank you, Mark, for giving me the link to the First Changeover Poll.





NP.  That's how we rolly, Pollee.


----------



## xechnao

I cant understand how choice of option 6 has grown more while site traffic has been more or less stable and the number of total votes in the two polls is nearly the same.


----------



## Wicht

xechnao said:


> I cant understand how choice of option 6 has grown more while site traffic has been more or less stable and the number of total votes in the two polls is nearly the same.






Perhaps because site traffic has nothing to do with acceptance of 4e and more ENworlders have given up on 4e in between polls.


----------



## xechnao

Wicht said:


> more ENworlders have given up on 4e in between polls.




But this is where inconsistency with option 6 lies. Option 6 is not about giving up, its about having never tried.


----------



## Rolflyn

xechnao said:


> But this is where inconsistency with option 6 lies. Option 6 is not about giving up, its about having never tried.




Option 6 in this poll is "No Change:  Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play".  Is there some other option 6 you might be talking about?


----------



## Wicht

Option 7 is the choice "never tried it," and it was about 27% in both polls, with a slight .16% _decrease_ between the first and second.


----------



## xechnao

Duh!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

The Second ENWorld Changeover Poll has been remarkably stable for the last 700 votes.

  Basically, it's been:

  Changeover:  31% to 33%
  No Changeover:  57% to 59%
  Partial Changeover:  9% to 11%
  Option 6:  30% to 32%

  Option 6?  
  Option 6 is the option of 'I tried 4E, but gave it up and *completely* went back to earlier editions.'
  So Option 6 is the 'I tried and rejected 4E' option.

  Option 6 has defined the Changeover Poll.  With almost 1 in 3 choosing Option 6, it massively altered the results.  
  Had everyone who choose Option 6 stuck with Options 1 and 2, Changeover would be at 65%, No Changeover at 27%, and Partial Changeover at 10%, or 65%/27%/8%.  Instead, it's 33%/58%/10%.

  I had thought a majority of people would vote for Options 2, 3, 4, and 5, or Partial Changeover (ranging from just a little changeover to mostly over), choosing to play and enjoy both 4E and the earlier editions.
  I, myself, choose Option 3 (half and half.)
  I am quite surprised at how *few* have chosen Options 3, 4, and 5.

  It really does seem like an All or Nothing proposition.  Not many choosing Let's Have Both.  Everyone is saying either they play 4E, they don't play 4E, but hardly anyone is saying 'we want it all.'

  In this sense, there is a sense of Absolutism in this poll.  Everything is Absolutely one way or the other.
  The 31% who choose Option 6, although they show their open-mindedness, ultimately increase the Absolutism, because they have *absolutely* quit 4E after trying it.  Had they not done so, they could have chosen Options 3, 4, or 5.

  I'm not denouncing anyone, not putting anyone down, not trying to flame or insult or tell anyone how to think!
  I'm merely noting some of the striking aspects of the results of the poll.  At least, to me, they are striking.

  We Gamers are an opinionated group, are we not?  Haven't we always been so?  I think so.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## xechnao

D&D has been a fairly crunchy game. I suppose gamers do not have infinite time in their hands so when having to deal with such a demanding activity they may prefer to limit themselves to choose what they consider the best.


----------



## xechnao

...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Just remember that "open mindedness" is not the exclusive claim of those who tried 4Ed.  Most veteran gamers like myself (30+ years in the hobby; experience in more than 50 systems, including playtests) can probably judge a game isn't to their liking without needing to try a session.


----------



## Jasperak

I am really surprised at these poll results and somewhat surprised at the results at RPGnet. I wonder how many of the respondents bought the books but answered tried or didn't try? WOTC made such a big deal about sales of the books compared to earlier editions, that I wonder if those books are just sitting on shelves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

There is at least a partial answer here on ENWorld.

Someone else on this site started a thread about who preordered 4Ed etc., and I was one of many who responded in the affirmative, and that I wasn't planning on ever running a game.

As I recall, it wasn't a long thread, though.  Whether that means that there isn't a huge portion of the community that bought 4Ed and gave up on it or if there was just so much going on that the thread got lost or whatever is unclear.


----------



## Harlekin

Edena_of_Neith said:


> The 31% who choose Option 6, although they show their open-mindedness,
> 
> Edena_of_Neith




I don't think many of these votes actually reflect much open-mindedness. This thread suggests that quite a few went into a playtest of 4th edition expecting to dislike the game. And their prediction came true.  Hence these players "went back to older editions" although they had never left.

The interesting question would be, how many people played 4th edition long enough to have a well founded opinion (120h to overcome your biases and preconceptions, as we learned in an other thread) and went back to older editions? I'm sure there are some, but I doubt the numbers are like the ones we are getting here.


----------



## Harlekin

Jasperak said:


> I am really surprised at these poll results and somewhat surprised at the results at RPGnet. I wonder how many of the respondents bought the books but answered tried or didn't try? WOTC made such a big deal about sales of the books compared to earlier editions, that I wonder if those books are just sitting on shelves.




That would of course assume that this poll is in any way representative for the changeover rates among the gamer population at large. However, as ENworld members are clearly not representative for the gamer population at large, this seems unlikely.

More likely, as this site started out as a 3rd edition discovery site, gamers on this site have a particularly strong financial and emotional investment in 3rd edition.


----------



## Jasperak

Harlekin said:


> I don't think many of these votes actually reflect much open-mindedness. This thread suggests that quite a few went into a playtest of 4th edition expecting to dislike the game. And their prediction came true.  Hence these players "went back to older editions" although they had never left.
> 
> The interesting question would be, how many people played 4th edition long enough to have a well founded opinion (120h to overcome your biases and preconceptions, as we learned in an other thread) and went back to older editions? I'm sure there are some, but I doubt the numbers are like the ones we are getting here.




Wow, 120 hours? At the current rate of play, that would mean I would have to "test drive" the game for 10 months or so. I have been playing for 20+ years. I think after four or so sessions I can get a feel for what the game is going to be like especially after reading through the PH. Yeah, by the end of August I realized 4e isn't for me.

As for your other post about ENWorld not being representative of the gamer population as a whole, my comments and questions are meant to deal primarily with the respondents to the poll. I am not looking at this or other polls for some sort of vindication of my feelings about 4e and D&D in general. This is an amusing little poll that may be a statistically viable exercise that shows some of my fellow ENWorlder's gaming habits.

This poll does partially explain why I spend far more time here than over at RPGnet though.


----------



## Harlekin

Jasperak said:


> Wow, 120 hours? At the current rate of play, that would mean I would have to "test drive" the game for 10 months or so. I have been playing for 20+ years. I think after four or so sessions I can get a feel for what the game is going to be like especially after reading through the PH. Yeah, by the end of August I realized 4e isn't for me.
> 
> As for your other post about ENWorld not being representative of the gamer population as a whole, my comments and questions are meant to deal primarily with the respondents to the poll. I am not looking at this or other polls for some sort of vindication of my feelings about 4e and D&D in general. This is an amusing little poll that may be a statistically viable exercise that shows some of my fellow ENWorlder's gaming habits.
> 
> This poll does partially explain why I spend far more time here than over at RPGnet though.




I agree that if you are playing a game you like,there is no need in investing 120h into a game that you may not like especially if you are initially set against it. You probably will never have a well founded opinion of the new game but if you have all you need, who cares? 

I was mostly trying to address your puzzlement how 4th could sell so well if en world had such a negative opinion of it. If the poll results shown here are not representative then such a contradiction is easily explained.

Btw, I think the biggest difference between ENworld and rpg.net is that rpgnetter tend to play more role playing systems, hence they have less of an emotional investment in any one system. Furthermore, they are probably also more open to radical changes in a game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Harlekin said:


> The interesting question would be, how many people played 4th edition long enough to have a well founded opinion (120h to overcome your biases and preconceptions, as we learned in an other thread) and went back to older editions?




That's an awfully long time to beat your head against a wall trying to have fun.  There are games I _love_ that I haven't played 120 hours of, so I'm thinking that's a bit long.

I'll stand by my opinion- I pre-ordered 4Ed, and it disappointed me.  I have enough experience in the hobby to know what I do and don't like in a game- I don't need to frustrate myself for hours on end to figure that out.


----------



## Jasperak

Harlekin said:


> I agree that if you are playing a game you like,there is no need in investing 120h into a game that you may not like especially if you are initially set against it. You probably will never have a well founded opinion of the new game but if you have all you need, who cares?




That's the rub for me though. I was not set against it originally. I was worn out from the weight of 3e and waiting for something new and different. I had originally thought to move to C&C or create a new 1e/BECMI hybrid, but I figured I would wait until 4e came out. Once it did though it failed at what I was looking for.

After the months of edition war BS I've realized I much prefer rules light systems that don't get in the way of role-playing. With that said I am psyched to try out Warhammer Fantasy Role-playing Game if only because I want to get back to my gaming roots. I miss my mega-dungeons and the thrill of exploration. I miss the thrill of not knowing if my characters will be able to survive a random encounter. All of this expectation of magic and game balance soured me first on 3e but nauseated me on 4e.

So no, I didn't go into 4e hating it. I came out hating it because it took everything I hated about 3e and amplified it. Now granted it did do somethings that I like (multiclassing) but it also gave me cards to tap during combat.



> I was mostly trying to address your puzzlement how 4th could sell so well if en world had such a negative opinion of it. If the poll results shown here are not representative then such a contradiction is easily explained.




When the PHB2 comes out shortly we will have a better idea of the amount of people playing 4e. It sounds like a fair portion of people here and elsewhere bought the core set very cheap from online-distributors. I would like to know how many of those books are in use or collecting dust on the shelves. I would also like to see how well the newer books sell at more normal prices. 

I guess my previous post questioned how representative is ENWorld of the gaming community at large and by extension where do I fit in with the gaming community? This with the further question of, "Am I part of a dying breed or will there be enough like-minded people left behind like me?"


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's an awfully long time to beat your head against a wall trying to have fun.  There are games I _love_ that I haven't played 120 hours of, so I'm thinking that's a bit long.




I agree. After all, your life does not depend on you having an unbiased opinion of any game. And you already have a game that you are happy with.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Harlekin said:


> I agree. After all, your life does not depend on you having an unbiased opinion of any game. And you already have a game that you are happy with.




Rein in your snark- bias has nothing to do with it.  4Ed got the same shake as any other system I've purchased.  Actually, even better- I don't usually purchase a game before checking out its mechanics and fluff.

And in 30+ years of gaming (as I've said, covering many systems & doing actual playtests), 4Ed stands as one of only 2 game revisions of a game I enjoyed that I didn't like.

I preordered it.  I read some of the prerelease leaks.  I read the game when it finally got into my hands.  While I found some things in the game to be meritorious, as a whole, it had eliminated too many elements of previous editions I enjoyed- things I felt helped set D&D apart from other FRPGs- while having too many new elements that I disliked.

In fact, it was such a different game that the designers themselves suggested that you start new campaigns rather than try to convert extant ones, which for someone like myself was another strike against it.

I handed it off to others in my main game group, most of whom are avid computer gamers, a few of whom are professional computer game _designers._ _THEIR_ main complaint (not mine) was that it introduced certain aspects of computer games that they had no wish to experience in a tabletop RPG.

I then shelved it.


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Rein in your snark- bias has nothing to do with it.  4Ed got the same shake as any other system I've purchased.  Actually, even better- I don't usually purchase a game before checking out its mechanics and fluff.
> 
> And in 30+ years of gaming (as I've said, covering many systems & doing actual playtests), 4Ed stands as one of only 2 game revisions of a game I enjoyed that I didn't like.
> 
> I preordered it.  I read some of the prerelease leaks.  I read the game when it finally got into my hands.  While I found some things in the game to be meritorious, as a whole, it had eliminated too many elements of previous editions I enjoyed- things I felt helped set D&D apart from other FRPGs- while having too many new elements that I disliked.
> 
> In fact, it was such a different game that the designers themselves suggested that you start new campaigns rather than try to convert extant ones, which for someone like myself was another strike against it.
> 
> I handed it off to others in my main game group, most of whom are avid computer gamers, a few of whom are professional computer game _designers._ _THEIR_ main complaint (not mine) was that it introduced certain aspects of computer games that they had no wish to experience in a tabletop RPG.
> 
> I then shelved it.




No snark intended. You got a first impression of the game and you decided that it was not worth your time. And even if that first impression was wrong (possible, though maybe not likely), it would take you way too much effort to overcome it. You decided not to invest that time as you don't need a new gaming system. I would consider that a rational decision.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Harlekin said:


> No snark intended. You got a first impression of the game and you decided that it was not worth your time. And even if that first impression was wrong (possible, though maybe not likely), it would take you way too much effort to overcome it. You decided not to invest that time as you don't need a new gaming system. I would consider that a rational decision.




Fair enough.

The Internet: great for communicating quickly, not so good for communicating nuance.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

1,173 votes and counting.  Cheers, folks.  Thanks for participating like this!  : )

  With the 1,173 votes:

  Changeover:  33%
  No Changeover:  58%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  Option 6:  31%


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

The Second Changeover Poll

  1,178 Votes

  Changeover:  33.36%  (rounds down to 33%)
  Partial Changeover:  8.74%  (rounds up to 9%)
  No Changeover:  57.89%  (rounds up to 58%)
  Option 6:  30.90%  (rounds up to 31%)

  This will be my last update, basically.
  I had hoped that we would reach 1,200 votes, but we didn't quite make it.
  We did, however, beat out the First Changeover Poll by 225 votes.  That poll originally received 953 votes, and this poll received 1,178 votes.

  The poll is still around, and you can still vote on it, but I won't be bumping it.  It is almost February, and this was basically a December/January poll.

  The numbers moved into their present positions around Vote Number 400, and have stayed within 2 percentile points of the results you see, for the last 800 votes.  It has been extremely stable.  Everytime someone voted for one side, someone voted for the other side.  Just very extremely stable.

  I think I can *definitively* conclude that these are the *true* results, the *true* feelings, for *ENWorld.*


----------



## catsclaw227

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I think I can *definitively* conclude that these are the *true* results, the *true* feelings, for *ENWorld.*



Except for the important issue that you don't need to be logged in to vote in the poll.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

catsclaw227 said:


> Except for the important issue that you don't need to be logged in to vote in the poll.



This is a kind of manipulation everyone can perform. Unless you assume that it is more likely that only one poll option attracts people that would attempt such a manipulation. This should lead to a significant spike for one of the options. If you see such a spike in the later poll options*, this would imply that there is some "force" manipulating this poll that doesn't like 4E. It is possible, but... I find it unlikely. 

Of course, maybe the alternative is to horrible to consider 


Spoiler



- a lot of people have bad taste!



*)No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play; No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play 

PS: I just remember my "Have you tried 4E" thread a while back.  http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...4th-edition-d-d-you-playing-already-ever.html 

I think I should make a new run after PHB II is out.


----------



## catsclaw227

I understand, I wasn't judging the results.  I was simply stating that with an open poll without login requirements, then it isn't a poll of EnWorld members.  It's a poll for anyone, it just happens to be posted on EnWorld.


----------



## Barcode

But you really should be judging the results, cc.  Anyone anywhere can vote in the poll anonymously, delete their cookie, then vote again, as many times as they like.  Give it a try, boost your favorite result a couple of votes.  Or 10 or 20.  You won't be doing any real harm, since I guarantee you it has already been done.

It's not a valid representation of anything, people.  It's just for fun.


----------



## catsclaw227

As I said, I understand.  I was simply poking fun at a "flaw" in the poll. 

EDIT:  I am not saying the poll data is flawed, I am just saying that it is anonymous and doesn't require login and therefore, potentially, easily screwed by a mildly motivated party. 

I am not a statistician or a Poll Expert, but I imagine that this tidbit alone would cause the poll to be tossed out in a professional sense.


----------



## Treebore

Any poll has potential flaws. Which is why methodology and mathematical formula's have beed developed to help account for these confounds, so even this data could be turned into something highly reliable. At least +/- 10% reliability, if not better.

Still, no one is trying to do that, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## DaveMage

Barcode said:


> It's just for fun.





750 posts worth of fun indeed!

Boo-yah!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Barcode said:


> Give it a try, boost your favorite result a couple of votes.  Or 10 or 20.  You won't be doing any real harm, since I guarantee you it has already been done.




You _guarantee _that someone has cheated on the poll?


----------



## Scribble

DaveMage said:


> 750 posts worth of fun indeed!
> 
> Boo-yah!




In that same way that when you have one of those ulcer things in your mouth poking at it with your tongue is fun.


----------



## Barcode

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You _guarantee _that someone has cheated on the poll?




Yes.  Yes I do.


----------



## Jasperak

Scribble said:


> In that same way that when you have one of those ulcer things in your mouth poking at it with your tongue is fun.




Where the hell has your tongue been?!?


----------



## Treebore

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You _guarantee _that someone has cheated on the poll?





Don't worry. I don't think he is right anyways. I cleared my cookies yesterday morning and hadn't signed in when I visited this board, and thread, yesterday. I couldn't vote, let alone post, until I signed in again.


So based on that, you have to create, and sign into, a valid ENWorld account before you can vote/post. Since it knew I voted once I was signed in, I certainly cannot vote multiple times.


----------



## Treebore

In fact, it identified me by my ISP address, so the only way Barcode, or anyone can cheat on this poll is to create multiple ENWorld accounts from different ISP locations, which are not from your own house, unless you have multiple routers, or a business with multiple routers, and you know which computers go through which routers.

You definitely cannot do it from the same ISP address, and not be signed in, even with cleared cookies, or else I would have been able to vote again yesterday.

That or I have a mutant ISP.


----------



## Scribble

Treebore said:


> In fact, it identified me by my ISP address, so the only way Barcode, or anyone can cheat on this poll is to create multiple ENWorld accounts from different ISP locations, which are not from your own house, unless you have multiple routers, or a business with multiple routers, and you know which computers go through which routers.
> 
> You definitely cannot do it from the same ISP address, and not be signed in, even with cleared cookies, or else I would have been able to vote again yesterday.
> 
> That or I have a mutant ISP.




ISP address or IP address?

If it's an IP address variable IP addresses are somewhat common.

Also you're incorrect... at least from where I sit. You don't need to be logged in to vote. Post- yes you need an account, but not to vote. And everytime you log in / then log back out the system seems to forget about you, so each time you log out you can vote as a guest, log in, the log back out and re-vote as a guest.


----------



## Treebore

Scribble said:


> ISP address or IP address?
> 
> If it's an IP address variable IP addresses are somewhat common.





Really? Well, when I try to do port forwarding the only "Address" other computers outside of my router care about is my router IP, which is provided by my ISP. On my side of the router each of my computers have different IP's, but when I sign onto the internet the only IP ENWorld sees is the one IP my router has, not those of each of my 4 computers.

So no matter what computer I am on when I sign into ENWorld, it still knows I voted, and it does not offer me a new chance to vote. I can only presume that is because my router only has one IP, and that is the IP ENWorld sees, not the IP of the computer I am using on the LAN side of my router.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

(blinks)

  Changeover:  34%
  No Changeover:  57%
  Partial Changeover:  9%

  There has been a major shift.  The numbers just moved out of the range, which they had stayed within from votes 400 through 1,200.  They are out of that range, in favor of 4E.

  Changeover (to 4E) had moved 1 percentile above the standard range.
  No Changeover (to 4E) has moved 1 percentile below the standard range.

  If this trend continues, it could swing the results of the Changeover Poll into pro-4E territory it has never been in before.

  Edena_of_Neith

  EDIT:  

I have completely ignored the idea of anyone 'cheating' on this poll, or 'stuffing the ballot box' on this poll, even though I know it can be done.
  Why?
  Because if one side is doing it, I'm sure the other side is doing it.  People on both sides feel strongly about this issue, and I honestly believe that if one side feels strongly enough to 'stuff the ballot box' then the other side does too.

  The result?

  +1 added to -1 = 0.
  The 'stuffing the ballot box' effect is countered by the other side 'stuffing the ballot box', and the two effects neutralize each other.  The result is Null.


----------



## Scribble

Treebore said:


> Really? Well, when I try to do port forwarding the only "Address" other computers outside of my router care about is my router IP, which is provided by my ISP. On my side of the router each of my computers have different IP's, but when I sign onto the internet the only IP ENWorld sees is the one IP my router has, not those of each of my 4 computers.




Yeah some ISPs provie static IPs some variable. If you're on a variable IP it will be reassigned to you each time you reboot. Or in the case of your router each time it resets and logs back on. 



> So no matter what computer I am on when I sign into ENWorld, it still knows I voted, and it does not offer me a new chance to vote. I can only presume that is because my router only has one IP, and that is the IP ENWorld sees, not the IP of the computer I am using on the LAN side of my router.




You don't get extra chances o vote as your account. Like I can't vote multiple times as scribble. I can vote as many times as I want as Unsigned in guy provided I sign in as scribble then log back out and vote again as unsigned in guy.


----------



## Treebore

Scribble said:


> You don't get extra chances o vote as your account. Like I can't vote multiple times as scribble. I can vote as many times as I want as Unsigned in guy provided I sign in as scribble then log back out and vote again as unsigned in guy.





I still wonder about that, because yesterday I visited this site after I had emptied my cookies folder, so I wasn't signed in. I couldn't vote or post unsigned, I tried. So I had to sign in, naturally it was to my account. My point is I was unable to do either until I signed in. So if my experience is kind of universal I would say that the claims that people can vote in this poll without being signed in are wrong. My experience says no one can vote, or post, unless they create and sign into a validated account.

However, I am far from being any kind of hacker when it comes to computers and there is plenty I do not understand. 

I just know that having my cookies deleted and not being signed in did not allow me to get an extra vote, so as far as I can tell Barcode is wrong about being able to do that. Are there other ways to make it work? I am sure there is, all I know is that simply deleting all my cookies and not signing in did not work for me.


----------



## xechnao

I logged off right now and the poll letted me submit a vote. Do not know if it counted though. I was stupid enough to not check the ballot before voting. Btw, I had not voted before.

So I guess it is only a matter of IP.


----------



## Treebore

xechnao said:


> I logged off right now and the poll letted me submit a vote. Do not know if it counted though. I was stupid enough to not check the ballot before voting. Btw, I had not voted before.
> 
> So I guess it is only a matter of IP.





Try voting again.


----------



## Treebore

Strange, it allowed me to sign out and vote today, without clearing cookies, etc...

So it is possible to vote at least twice, from the same IP. Once signed in, and once not signed in.

Now I'll have to see if I can do it from my other computers via the same router.


----------



## xechnao

Treebore said:


> Try voting again.




Heh, sorry boys, so the security here seems to be rather seriously flawed. I managed to vote again 2 more times. Here is the trick: If I log on I cant vote. If I log off I can vote once. If after voting I log on and then log off again I can re-vote as logged off. I guess this can happen at infinitum. Give me an hour and I can skyrocket any option you wish.


----------



## gamecat

No change for me.

I adore 3rd edition, even what other players call its shortcomings. Perhaps it's just because it's been almost ten years since I first beheld with wonderment things like "Monsters have ability scores now?" or "I can multiclass however I feel like?".

Perhaps I'm being reactionary, but I'm so overly enthralled (and invested in) with 3.5 edition that 4e just doesn't interest me.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Holy makeral.  I thought the poll over due to the lack of interest, and ... 100 votes in 2 days!

  It is a literal flood of pro-4E voting, too.  The results are changed again, away from the 400 - 1,200 Vote Poll Range.

  1,271 votes

  Changeover:  36%
  No Changeover:  55%
  Partial Changeover:  9%
  (EDIT:  Option 6:  29%)

  We are talking about a 3 percentile point gain for Changeover, and a 3 percentile point drop for No Changeover, away from the previous Poll Range.
  That is, from the 400 vote mark through the 1,200 vote mark, Changeover never made it higher than 33%.  It remained within the 31% to 33% mark for all that time.  Now it is up to 36% and rising.
  Likewise, No Changeover never fell below 57%.  It ranged from 57% to 59% through all the time and all those votes.  Now, it is at 55% and dropping.

  4E is back in the running here.  It was Less Than 1 In 3.  Now, it is way more than 1 in 3.  If this keeps going, we will be talking in terms of 4 in 10 once more.
  3E and earlier were 6 in 10 before.  That is no longer true.  If this drop continues, we will be talking in terms of 1 in 2 once more (we certainly will not be discussing it in terms of 2 in 3, as some suggested was the case.)


----------



## Sammael

Personally, I think all the extra votes are coming from one (or more) of the people who are trying to disapprove the meaning of this poll (not that it has any). It's not feasible for the poll results to change as much in such a short time (after being rock-solid for weeks) without some rigging going on.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Harlekin said:


> The interesting question would be, how many people played 4th edition long enough to have a well founded opinion (120h to overcome your biases and preconceptions, as we learned in an other thread) and went back to older editions? I'm sure there are some, but I doubt the numbers are like the ones we are getting here.



Those of you who suspected you wouldn't like anchovies, but tried them anyway (and found your suspicion confirmed), did you eat at least 120 anchovies?  Did you try anchovies with various beers or other beverages, to help overcome your biases and preconceptions?  If not, well, you didn't _really_ try anchovies, so your opinion certainly doesn't mean anything.  Wusses.


----------



## Plane Sailing

xechnao said:


> Heh, sorry boys, so the security here seems to be rather seriously flawed. I managed to vote again 2 more times. Here is the trick: If I log on I cant vote. If I log off I can vote once. If after voting I log on and then log off again I can re-vote as logged off. I guess this can happen at infinitum. Give me an hour and I can skyrocket any option you wish.




This poll, as all polls, are a bit of fun which can sometimes illustrate interesting issues from an ENworld perspective.

Now, if you or anyone else thinks it is fun to 'stuff' the poll to spoil the results, and we find out, you'll be banned. Why? Because it is stupid and rude to deliberately spoil something that someone else (in this case Edena) has started.

You have been warned.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

I will merely state that the Control Poll Numbers, the numbers that were constant from Vote 400 through Vote 1,200, were within the following ranges:

  Changeover:  31% to 33%
  No Changeover:  57% to 59%
  Partial Changeover:  9% to 11%
  Option 6:  30% to 32%

  That is not true, now.  But it was true for 800 votes.


----------



## Zulithe

I feel that as time goes on, complete changeover or partial changeover can only increase, as long as WotC keeps up the current pace of things.

Maybe we can get the poll loopholes fixed and start another poll? After reading the last 2 or 3 pages, I don't really trust these results anymore.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Edena_of_Neith said:


> Holy makeral.  I thought the poll over due to the lack of interest, and ... 100 votes in 2 days!
> 
> It is a literal flood of pro-4E voting, too.  The results are changed again, away from the 400 - 1,200 Vote Poll Range.






Edena_of_Neith said:


> I will merely state that the Control Poll Numbers, the numbers that were constant from Vote 400 through Vote 1,200, were within the following ranges:
> 
> Changeover:  31% to 33%
> No Changeover:  57% to 59%
> Partial Changeover:  9% to 11%
> Option 6:  30% to 32%
> 
> That is not true, now.  But it was true for 800 votes.




In the light of these findings, and a pattern which does look like shills at work, I'm closing the poll for the time being.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Sammael said:


> Personally, I think all the extra votes are coming from one (or more) of the people who are trying to disapprove the meaning of this poll (not that it has any). It's not feasible for the poll results to change as much in such a short time (after being rock-solid for weeks) without some rigging going on.




It's a self-selecting poll.  It has no meaning other than entertainment.

Sorry, guys.  I wish there were some way to get real data here, but it's not feasible.  Ultimately, all we could do is get one person to take the list of ENWorld users and run a private poll, carefully worded to avoid bias, and use either a random sample or the entire population (really unlikely, since there are still people that are happy to just read and never create a user-id).  That means that if you run a sample, without somehow having information on the actual population number, it's pretty much impossible to develop the type of hyper-accurate research poll that would really be useful for much of anything.

This post brought to you by statistics.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Zulithe said:


> Maybe we can get the poll loopholes fixed and start another poll? After reading the last 2 or 3 pages, I don't really trust these results anymore.




Just reading the last dozen or so posts should tell you exactly how much you can trust the poll-- both before and after it was tampered with.


----------



## DaveMage

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Just reading the last dozen or so posts should tell you exactly how much you can trust the poll-- both before and after it was tampered with.




It might be better to post public polls regarding things like this in the future.  It's doesn't prevent someone from creating multiple usernames, but it's less likely (though not impossible) someone will spend the effort affect such a poll in a meaningful way.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith

Plane Sailing said:


> In the light of these findings, and a pattern which does look like shills at work, I'm closing the poll for the time being.




  (nods)

  I understand, Plane Sailing.  Please do, if you would.  Close the poll, that is.

  The final, and established results, are the average of the 400 - 1,200 vote base results, and these would be:

  Changeover:  32% (31% - 33%)
  No Changeover:  58% (57% - 59%)
  Partial Changeover:  10%  (9% - 11%)
  Option 6:  31%  (30% - 32%)

  We will go with these results.  These are the verifiable and most trustworthy results of the Second Changeover Poll.

  If, at some later date (it will be more than 4 months from now) I create a Third Changeover Poll, it will have the same questions as this poll.

  Edena_of_Neith, bowing out here.


----------



## xechnao

EDIT: issue answered by Dinkeldog just above.


----------



## Jasperak

A short time after PH2 comes out might be a good time. We might be able to see if more options in the game bring more people in.


----------



## Mark Hope

Edena_of_Neith said:


> If, at some later date (it will be more than 4 months from now) I create a Third Changeover Poll, it will have the same questions as this poll.




If you do, please make it a public poll!


----------



## Dragon Snack

It's not necessarily one person doing the vote stuffing themselves.  After all, in the RPG.net poll, this poll is mentioned.  Did someone mention this poll at WotC or some other pro-4.0 site?  Of course people will come over and vote.

Either way, a 45% changeover isn't much to brag about...


----------



## Harlekin

Dinkeldog said:


> It's a self-selecting poll.  It has no meaning other than entertainment.
> 
> Sorry, guys.  I wish there were some way to get real data here, but it's not feasible.  Ultimately, all we could do is get one person to take the list of ENWorld users and run a private poll, carefully worded to avoid bias, and use either a random sample or the entire population (really unlikely, since there are still people that are happy to just read and never create a user-id).  That means that if you run a sample, without somehow having information on the actual population number, it's pretty much impossible to develop the type of hyper-accurate research poll that would really be useful for much of anything.
> 
> This post brought to you by statistics.





And even after all this hassle, we would only get the distribution for en world users, not for gamers at large. An as we know, en world users are not representative, so the poll would still carry no information about the overall success of 4th edition. There is a reason that role playing companies do next to no market research: It is too expensive. 

 PS: dd, i din't know you did stats for a living.


----------



## Scribble

Jeff Wilder said:


> Those of you who suspected you wouldn't like anchovies, but tried them anyway (and found your suspicion confirmed), did you eat at least 120 anchovies?  Did you try anchovies with various beers or other beverages, to help overcome your biases and preconceptions?  If not, well, you didn't _really_ try anchovies, so your opinion certainly doesn't mean anything.  Wusses.




I never liked onions. Someone had me try some once on a salad. YUCK. So I never touched them again after that. Till my wife one day said have you ever tried them cooked? Low and behold... I like onions cooked.

I don't like tomatos... I like tomato sauce though, and ketchup.

Also a lot of people like anchovies and they don't even know it. Anchovies are in a lot of stuff. If you like Ceaser Salad dressing... you like anchovies to an extent


----------



## Harlekin

Scribble said:


> I never liked onions. Someone had me try some once on a salad. YUCK. So I never touched them again after that. Till my wife one day said have you ever tried them cooked? Low and behold... I like onions cooked.
> 
> I don't like tomatos... I like tomato sauce though, and ketchup.
> 
> Also a lot of people like anchovies and they don't even know it. Anchovies are in a lot of stuff. If you like Ceaser Salad dressing... you like anchovies to an extent




And if we take into account that complicated systems such as RPGs are probably harder to evaluate than a simple taste, it is fair to assume that getting a nuanced understanding of a new RPG system takes a long time.

And that is even before considering the emotional and financial investment one can have in such a hobby, which would further hamper a balanced evaluation.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> And if we take into account that complicated systems such as RPGs are probably harder to evaluate than a simple taste, it is fair to assume that getting a nuanced understanding of a new RPG system takes a long time.




This is the art of RPG design: less time to figure out as many things as possible.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Harlekin said:


> And if we take into account that complicated systems such as RPGs are probably harder to evaluate than a simple taste, it is fair to assume that getting a nuanced understanding of a new RPG system takes a long time.




Nahhh, don't think so.  Beyond the simple but major dichotomy of cooked vs uncooked, most people aren't going to change an opinion of something they don't like to eat based on eating more of it.  After a certain point, all they're doing is torturing their taste buds.

Another one of my major interests is music- I've been involved in music longer than RPGs, and music is _at least_ as complex as RPGs.

I grew up the son of a music teacher, so besides knowing how to use my 4.5 octave voice quite well, I play cello, guitar and bass guitar.

In addition, I own more than 5k CDs, as well as music in other formats, and I've been an Entertainment Attorney for several years and hold a Masters in the marketing of sports and entertainment.

IOW, I _really_ understand music.

I can usually tell if I'm going to like a band within 3 thirty second samples of a band's music, assuming they are representative of their stylistic breadth.  (That is not to say I might not like a song here or there, just whether I'd ever consider buying any of their CDs.)  In my life, only 3 bands have ever fooled me: Collective Soul, King Diamond and Danzig.

Similarly, if you send in submissions for publication in a fiction magazine, the editor is only going to give you a few pages MAX before he decides whether to read further or send you a "Thank you but no" letter.

RPGs are no different.  If you've been in the hobby for decades, you have already formed preferences as to what you do and don't enjoy playing.  In all likelyhood, someone who has gamed that long has gone through a system revision or 2, has experience in multiple systems and is aware of changes in the way games are designed.  That gamer won't need to- and may not be able to- invest the equivalent of a couple of work-weeks to make a decision about whether they like a game or not.

A simple reading may suffice- it did for me and my friends.  Others may need to try running/playing the game.  It certainly_ shouldn't_ take 120 hours to figure out a game isn't for you.*

* Unless that's how long it takes to get through your first 4Ed combat.  Just kidding- there have been so many threads about 4Ed combat grind I couldn't resist.


----------



## catsclaw227

Scribble said:


> Also you're incorrect... at least from where I sit. You don't need to be logged in to vote. Post- yes you need an account, but not to vote. And everytime you log in / then log back out the system seems to forget about you, so each time you log out you can vote as a guest, log in, the log back out and re-vote as a guest.



This.  I tested it earlier and it worked.  Note: I voted twice for each "side" to keep it balanced for my testing.


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nahhh, don't think so.  Beyond the simple but major dichotomy of cooked vs uncooked, most people aren't going to change an opinion of something they don't like to eat based on eating more of it.  After a certain point, all they're doing is torturing their taste buds.
> 
> Another one of my major interests is music- I've been involved in music longer than RPGs, and music is _at least_ as complex as RPGs.
> 
> I grew up the son of a music teacher, so besides knowing how to use my 4.5 octave voice quite well, I play cello, guitar and bass guitar.
> 
> In addition, I own more than 5k CDs, as well as music in other formats, and I've been an Entertainment Attorney for several years and hold a Masters in the marketing of sports and entertainment.
> 
> IOW, I _really_ understand music.
> 
> I can usually tell if I'm going to like a band within 3 thirty second samples of a band's music, assuming they are representative of their stylistic breadth.  (That is not to say I might not like a song here or there, just whether I'd ever consider buying any of their CDs.)  In my life, only 3 bands have ever fooled me: Collective Soul, King Diamond and Danzig.
> 
> Similarly, if you send in submissions for publication in a fiction magazine, the editor is only going to give you a few pages MAX before he decides whether to read further or send you a "Thank you but no" letter.
> 
> RPGs are no different.  If you've been in the hobby for decades, you have already formed preferences as to what you do and don't enjoy playing.  In all likelyhood, someone who has gamed that long has gone through a system revision or 2, has experience in multiple systems and is aware of changes in the way games are designed.  That gamer won't need to- and may not be able to- invest the equivalent of a couple of work-weeks to make a decision about whether they like a game or not.
> 
> A simple reading may suffice- it did for me and my friends.  Others may need to try running/playing the game.  It certainly_ shouldn't_ take 120 hours to figure out a game isn't for you.*
> 
> * Unless that's how long it takes to get through your first 4Ed combat.  Just kidding- there have been so many threads about 4Ed combat grind I couldn't resist.




Shrug, I've gaming about as long as you and I'm pretty sure you are wrong. I have seen more than one game that read great and played badly and the other way round. If you think you know what a game is like after reading the rule book you are making a decision on very little information and your prior is likely contributing more to the decision than the data you have.

Btw, the same is true in the entertainment models you described. An editor that gets way more than he can publish will read everything with the assumption that it's not publishable. Hence he needs little extra information to to make a decision about rejecting a paper. Furthermore, he does not actually care if he rejects a few quality manuscripts ans long as he does not accept bad stories. (Specificity vs Sensitivity)


----------



## catsclaw227

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can usually tell if I'm going to like a band within 3 thirty second samples of a band's music, assuming they are representative of their stylistic breadth.  (That is not to say I might not like a song here or there, just whether I'd ever consider buying any of their CDs.)  In my life, only 3 bands have ever fooled me: Collective Soul, King Diamond and Danzig.



You should check out Magic Pie.  Their sound is not easy to represent in 30 sec clips, but most prog is like that anyway being that the prog spectrum is pretty wide.


----------



## Scribble

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nahhh, don't think so.  Beyond the simple but major dichotomy of cooked vs uncooked, most people aren't going to change an opinion of something they don't like to eat based on eating more of it.  After a certain point, all they're doing is torturing their taste buds.
> 
> I can usually tell if I'm going to like a band within 3 thirty second samples of a band's music, assuming they are representative of their stylistic breadth.
> 
> Similarly, if you send in submissions for publication in a fiction magazine, the editor is only going to give you a few pages MAX before he decides whether to read further or send you a "Thank you but no" letter.





While I don't dissagree with the part about the editor giving a few pages max, I don't agree this means he read enough to determine if he would have liked the whole piece had he continued. It just means the begning failed to grab him enough to continue. 

There have been a LOT of AMAZING and award winning indipendent films for instance that probably would have (and actually have) failed to grab a producers interest enough to get him to finish reading the script.

Aside from that, as far as needing to play it:

RPGs are designed to be played. I think the experince will almost always be different when you actually play it then when you read it or have it simply described.

Which might be a case for making sure a game DOES read well... Like the editor who only reads a few pages, if you fail to grab the reader, he might have less of an incentive to PLAY the game as intended.

As far as needing to play it more then once:

I think the idea is that many people go into a situation with a number of preconcieved ideas and notions that can sometimes cloud their experience.

IE they might not realize a certain rule or concept has changed, which creates a ripple effect on how other things play out. 

They might also not understand the intent or feel of a rules system until they get used to it. IE if someone goes right from a D&D hack n slash style game into a white wolf Vampire the Masquerade game the experience might be jarring until they get the feel of the game.

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Harlekin said:


> Shrug, I've gaming about as long as you and I'm pretty sure you are wrong. I have seen more than one game that read great and played badly and the other way round.




I haven't encountered a game like either- I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


> If you think you know what a game is like after reading the rule book you are making a decision on very little information and your prior is likely contributing more to the decision than the data you have.




This isn't science- this is entertainment.  I may need hours or even years to determine if a scientific theory is true or junk, but I definitely don't need hours of testing to know I don't like something.


> Btw, the same is true in the entertainment models you described. An editor that gets way more than he can publish will read everything with the assumption that it's not publishable.




Not IME, and not according to what most of the editors themselves say.  (They could be lying, of course, but why?)  They tend to go into a decision_ HOPING _they've found a diamond and are disappointed when its only a piece of glass.

Some even go so far as to have a third pile between the green lit pieces and the rejected ones- the "needs work" pile.  Someone- maybe the actual editor himself- will send the rejection notice but with the additional notation that if certain changes were made, then it would be acceptable.

It happens in publishing.  It happens in music.  It even happens in sports and other areas.

Do errors get made?  Sure- two types, and you mentioned them before: Errors of Rejection (tossing out something of quality) and Errors of Acceptance (greenlighting something bad), but they are by far in the minority.  And the latter is orders of magnitude more common.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

catsclaw227 said:


> You should check out Magic Pie.  Their sound is not easy to represent in 30 sec clips, but most prog is like that anyway being that the prog spectrum is pretty wide.



I'm a big fan of prog in all its forms, and despite the general preference for long songs within the prog genres, I still can tell pretty quickly if I'd enjoy a prog band.

I'll take a listen to MP, though.

EDIT: I did- sounds like mainstream prog rock to me.  Not astounding enough for me to put it at the top of my "must buy" list, but good enough for me to consider buying it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There have been a LOT of AMAZING and award winning indipendent films for instance that probably would have (and actually have) failed to grab a producers interest enough to get him to finish reading the script.




But they all eventually found their market.

The editor is just making the decision that what is in his hands is not appropriate for his company to put into the market, not that it has no market whatsoever.



> RPGs are designed to be played. I think the experince will almost always be different when you actually play it then when you read it or have it simply described.




That hasn't been my experience at all.  As the saying goes, though, YMMV.

At best, I have found that certain games are better in the hands of a GM who really understands how to run the system- really, how could it not be- but I have yet to find one that I've wanted to run myself, even after having it run for me by such a GM.

I dislike GURPS.  I've played uncounted hours of it (probably even 120+), including a playtest, out of friendship.  Even though I've participated in some fantastic campaigns in the system, I still have ZERO desire to ever run a GURPS campaign myself.  At most, I'll only ever be a player.  At most, I'll only ever buy the odd supplement (because they are so well researched) or a basic rulebook if I'm ever again in a group that is heavily GURPScentric (because it sucks having to constantly borrow books to run your PC).


----------



## Scribble

catsclaw227 said:


> You should check out Magic Pie.  Their sound is not easy to represent in 30 sec clips, but most prog is like that anyway being that the prog spectrum is pretty wide.




Does MP have a song called Orc?


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't encountered a game like either- I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> This isn't science- this is entertainment.  I may need hours or even years to determine if a scientific theory is true or junk, but I definitely don't need hours of testing to know I don't like something.




Yes, because once we have made such a snapshot decision, we are more likely to defend it, even with somewhat irrational arguments than to reevaluate it. Because we could not function if we reevaluated everything in our life all the time.

And given that it is entertainment, it does not really matter if we enjoy something or if we tell ourselves that we enjoy something. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not IME, and not according to what most of the editors themselves say.  (They could be lying, of course, but why?)  They tend to go into a decision_ HOPING _they've found a diamond and are disappointed when its only a piece of glass.
> 
> Some even go so far as to have a third pile between the green lit pieces and the rejected ones- the "needs work" pile.  Someone- maybe the actual editor himself- will send the rejection notice but with the additional notation that if certain changes were made, then it would be acceptable.
> 
> It happens in publishing.  It happens in music.  It even happens in sports and other areas.
> 
> Do errors get made?  Sure- two types, and you mentioned them before: Errors of Rejection (tossing out something of quality) and Errors of Acceptance (greenlighting something bad), but they are by far in the minority.  And the latter is orders of magnitude more common.




I don't think they are lying, but they have to have a mode of operation that lets them deal with the amount of submissions they are getting. It works the same in science. 

And if most of what they are getting submitted is crap than you would expect that most of what survives the editorial process is still crap, though one would hope that it's a smaller proportion.


----------



## catsclaw227

Scribble said:


> Does MP have a song called Orc?



Nope.... 

But you should still check them out.  Magic Pie Official Website


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But they all eventually found their market.
> 
> The editor is just making the decision that what is in his hands is not appropriate for his company to put into the market, not that it has no market whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't been my experience at all.  As the saying goes, though, YMMV.
> 
> At best, I have found that certain games are better in the hands of a GM who really understands how to run the system- really, how could it not be- but I have yet to find one that I've wanted to run myself, even after having it run for me by such a GM.
> 
> I dislike GURPS.  I've played uncounted hours of it (probably even 120+), including a playtest, out of friendship.  Even though I've participated in some fantastic campaigns in the system, I still have ZERO desire to ever run a GURPS campaign myself.  At most, I'll only ever be a player.  At most, I'll only ever buy the odd supplement (because they are so well researched) or a basic rulebook if I'm ever again in a group that is heavily GURPScentric (because it sucks having to constantly borrow books to run your PC).




Btw, I would love to have this discussion in person. If you ever come to Ann Arbor, drop me a line and I will buy you a beer.


----------



## Scribble

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But they all eventually found their market.
> 
> The editor is just making the decision that what is in his hands is not appropriate for his company to put into the market, not that it has no market whatsoever.




Sure I'm not arguing whether they did or didn't find their market. I simply dissagree wih your statement that reading a snippet lets someone know how the whole is overall. 

The producer might end up picking the script that in reality is worse overall, but simply has a better first 5 minutes.



> That hasn't been my experience at all.  As the saying goes, though, YMMV.




Yep.


----------



## mmu1

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That hasn't been my experience at all.  As the saying goes, though, YMMV.




My experience has been similar.

While I have seen a good DM run an enjoyable game despite using a bad rule set, that didn't magically make a bad system into a good one. That was just not using the rules as written.

And while I've certainly come across individual rules that I had misgivings about that turned out OK in play, or mechanics that seemed like great ideas that fell completely flat, I have yet to come across a system that, in its entirety, turned out to play significantly differently from my expectations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Yes, because once we have made such a snapshot decision, we are more likely to defend it, even with somewhat irrational arguments than to reevaluate it.




That's not really my MO.

I've tried oysters and tuna many ways...but no matter how much I try, I can't stand my oysters raw, and only enjoy tuna as sushi/sashimi.

I knew from reading GURPS that it wasn't my game.  Years of playing it hasn't changed my opinion one bit.

The difference between GURPS and 4Ed, in this instance, is that my experience with GURPS was in a group that played a lot of the game, giving me countless opportunities to try it out.

With 4Ed, there is _not one person_ in my circle of (10+) gamers who is willing to run it.  There were differing main reasons for rejecting it: mine, oft described elsewhere on the board; some who feel personally and financially invested in 3.X, so don't want to change; the programmers (including game programmers) who felt it was too videogamey; those who didn't have the time or inclination to learn a new system...IOW, the gamut of reasons why people have cited for not playing 4Ed.



> Btw, I would love to have this discussion in person. If you ever come to Ann Arbor, drop me a line and I will buy you a beer.




Man, I haven't been that far North in some time, and you're not the first to offer me a brewski if I head to the land of ice and snow.

I may just have to go on a trip across the northern reaches of the USA and Canada- or maybe arrange for us all to meet at GenCon*- to see how drunk I can get!

*one of these days, I WILL make it to GenCon.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Harlekin said:


> Shrug, I've gaming about as long as you and I'm pretty sure you are wrong. I have seen more than one game that read great and played badly and the other way round. If you think you know what a game is like after reading the rule book you are making a decision on very little information and your prior is likely contributing more to the decision than the data you have.




This is not aimed at Harlekin, but rather it was the most recent post covering the give it a chance theory. The point that I would like to share is that sometimes things can be judged by thier cover and people don't need to try everything in order to decide they don't like it. So for those that think one should try everything before deciding they don't like it, I would recomend giving FATAL a nice long trial period, then come back and let us know how it is.


----------



## Scribble

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I may just have to go on a trip across the northern reaches of the USA and Canada- or maybe arrange for us all to meet at GenCon*- to see how drunk I can get!




Man I would reccomend from experience staying away from traveling the northern route across the US...

At first you're all like Oh cool corn fields! Then like a day later you're like... please... no more cornfields...

Plus I'm not quite sure why the majority of our country listens to either talk radio, religious stations, or death metal, with no other options.


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Man, I haven't been that far North in some time, and you're not the first to offer me a brewski if I head to the land of ice and snow.
> 
> I may just have to go on a trip across the northern reaches of the USA and Canada- or maybe arrange for us all to meet at GenCon*- to see how drunk I can get!
> 
> *one of these days, I WILL make it to GenCon.




You are aware that we have Ice and Snow (in capital letters) only in the winter? In the summer it does get rather balmy here.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scribble said:


> Man I would reccomend from experience staying away from traveling the northern route across the US...
> 
> At first you're all like Oh cool corn fields! Then like a day later you're like... please... no more cornfields....




Mostly true, mostly true. The only difference I would point out that there are also wheat fields and more wheat fields as well.



Scribble said:


> Plus I'm not quite sure why the majority of our country listens to either talk radio, religious stations, or death metal, with no other options.




Please remember the the majority of our population doesn't live there. Its just that most of the land is there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Brown Jenkin said:


> So for those that think one should try everything before deciding they don't like it, I would recomend giving FATAL a nice long trial period, then come back and let us know how it is.




I think I made that suggestion a while ago- nice to see someone else agrees!


> Man I would reccomend from experience staying away from traveling the northern route across the US...
> 
> At first you're all like Oh cool corn fields! Then like a day later you're like... please... no more cornfields...




Well, I used to live in Tacoma, WA and Manhattan, KS, and I've actually made that trip before.  I LOVE long road trips with funky rest-stops and roadside attractions.  I can't tell you how many dinosaur parks, caves, forests, dairy/cheese farms and such I've visited.


> You are aware that we have Ice and Snow (in capital letters) only in the winter? In the summer it does get rather balmy here.




True- the last time I visited Michigan was in the summer- it was nice...very picturesque, and the smell of pine everywhere...unless you're near the shipyards or factories near the Great Lakes.

OTOH, "balmy" up there is like early spring in Texas.  You guys have heat stroke warnings at temps we out playing football in...

...while our cities down here get shut down by storms that wouldn't slow you guys down.


----------



## Scribble

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, I used to live in Tacoma, WA and Manhattan, KS, and I've actually made that trip before.  I LOVE long road trips with funky rest-stops and roadside attractions.  I can't tell you how many dinosaur parks, caves, forests, dairy/cheese farms and such I've visited.




yeah I've been back and forth across the country 3 times now. I love the drive, and think everyone should do it at least once...

Just not the northern route. 

Or at least not the northern route the whole time. There truly is a place called insanity, and it's filled with corn fields. Endless cornfields. And nothign else.


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, "balmy" up there is like early spring in Texas.  You guys have heat stroke warnings at temps we out playing football in...
> 
> ...while our cities down here get shut down by storms that wouldn't slow you guys down.




I know. I was interviewing in Dallas and in Michigan pretty exactly 4 years ago. It's a miracle that almost all the good schools are still in the north, given that academic hiring season is in the winter.


----------



## Harlekin

Brown Jenkin said:


> This is not aimed at Harlekin, but rather it was the most recent post covering the give it a chance theory. The point that I would like to share is that sometimes things can be judged by thier cover and people don't need to try everything in order to decide they don't like it. So for those that think one should try everything before deciding they don't like it, I would recomend giving FATAL a nice long trial period, then come back and let us know how it is.




See I would never claim that I have a well-founded opinion of FATAL.  And i don't need to develop one. 

Furthermore, I have a much more informative prior on FATAL than on any new edition of D&D. After all FATAL is the fantasy heartbreaker of a random guy out there while any new edition of D&D is several years of development effort of some of the best designers in the hobby.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> After all FATAL is the fantasy heartbreaker of a random guy out there while any new edition of D&D is several years of development effort of some of the best designers in the hobby.




Can you answer why? How do you know that they are some of the best designers in the hobby? How do you value who is random and who is not? Can you say if Gary Gygax is a better designer than those who designed Runequest or Warhammer? What is a fantasy heartbreaker? Is warhammer or runequest or ars magica one?


----------



## Harlekin

xechnao said:


> Can you answer why? How do you know that they are some of the best designers in the hobby? How do you value who is random and who is not? Can you say if Gary Gygax is a better designer than those who designed Runequest or Warhammer? What is a fantasy heartbreaker? Is warhammer or runequest or ars magica one?




I don't *know*, hence it's called a prior. However, there is plenty of of auxiliary information about the quality of the system FATAL. It is not published professionally, the designers have no track record, there is no one in the whole wide interweb speaking positively about the game and it is very unlikely that I am ever going to be in a game of FATAL.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Scribble said:


> yeah I've been back and forth across the country 3 times now. I love the drive, and think everyone should do it at least once...
> 
> Just not the northern route.
> 
> Or at least not the northern route the whole time. There truly is a place called insanity, and it's filled with corn fields. Endless cornfields. And nothign else.




D'ja ever see the "Its a good life" episode of _The Twilight Zone_ with Billy Mumy as Anthony Freemont?  Did it scar you for life?



> Furthermore, I have a much more informative prior on FATAL than on any new edition of D&D.




Given the lengthy 4Ed rollout with multiple leaks and sneak peeks and preview books, I'd have to disagree with the amount of info available prior to purchase of 4Ed vs FATAL.  We were positively blitzed with info.

Ditto to a slightly lesser extent the 3Ed rollout- which was presaged by...what, a year's worth?...of articles in Dragon magazine.

In contrast, there are RPGA, RPGnet, GameWyrd and other reviews of FATAL plus a few others.  A quick search revealed @ 49k hits, many of which were blogs, threads and simple quotes of the major ones...

At worst its a wash, at best, advantage WotC.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

It's ridiculous to suggest that the only way to determine if you will enjoy a ruleset is to play it.

That suggestion has _some _merit with respect to the game mechanics, but it assumes (quite incorrectly, absurdly and embarrassingly so) that gamers don't have the ability to judge mechanics with a read-through:

You don't need to play to realize that that "max damage on a crit" does not play the same as "double damage dice on a crit."​
And the suggestion has absolutely no merit whatsoever with regards to any one of a thousand pet peeves one might have with the design and/or the theme:

No amount of play will make tieflings and dragonborn (drawn by Wayne Reynolds or whoever your least favorite artist may be) disappear from your core books. They're always going to be there, on the cover of every book and every adventure you buy.​
To suggest that you need to play the game first is to suggest that such personal preferences are invalid. 

If that's the point you're trying to make, say so.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> I don't *know*, hence it's called a prior. However, there is plenty of of auxiliary information about the quality of the system FATAL. It is not published professionally, the designers have no track record, there is no one in the whole wide interweb speaking positively about the game and it is very unlikely that I am ever going to be in a game of FATAL.




And D&D has great production values (art, technical, supplements, marketing...). Is this what defines to be of the best designers for an rpg? The capital of Hasbro? Are rpg systems of such a technical and advanced technology that depend on financial investments?

Or should we rather try to define a designer in terms of actual design? But to do so you must understand design. Some people do, some not so much.

There are flawed designs and then there are quality designs. This means that non flawed designs can come with various qualities. Universally the most you can do with the system in less time the higher the quality. But some designs are specialized and focused and tend to sacrifice overall quality for specific qualities because they are aiming for a specific use rather than general use.

This is what rpg design is about more or less. So can you accept now that some people can understand a game's design just by first contact?


----------



## Greg K

Harlekin said:


> Shrug, I've gaming about as long as you and I'm pretty sure you are wrong. I have seen more than one game that read great and played badly and the other way round. If you think you know what a game is like after reading the rule book you are making a decision on very little information and your prior is likely contributing more to the decision than the data you have.




I disagree. After nearly 100 games, I can say that I have never found one that played better enough than it read for me to find enjoyable.


----------



## Greg K

Harlekin said:


> any new edition of D&D is several years of development effort of some of the best designers in the hobby.




Whether or no this is true is highly subjective, imo.


----------



## Harlekin

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It's ridiculous to suggest that the only way to determine if you will enjoy a ruleset is to play it.
> 
> That suggestion has _some _merit with respect to the game mechanics, but it assumes (quite incorrectly, absurdly and embarrassingly so) that gamers don't have the ability to judge mechanics with a read-through:
> 
> You don't need to play to realize that that "max damage on a crit" does not play the same as "double damage dice on a crit."​




Yes, and as long as nothing else changes, it is easy to predict what the outcome of such a change would be. However, the more of the system changes, the harder it becomes to predict how much this rule affects actual gameplay. So discussing such a detail out of context may not provide much information about the game. 
This rule is actually a good example. In 3.x such a critical hit rule would make crits meaningless at higher levels, as basically all the damage is due to boni. On the other hand in 4th edition it can make crits on encounter or daily powers very exciting as most of the damage for these powers is due to the die roll. and there are even more ramifications.




Wulf Ratbane said:


> And the suggestion has absolutely no merit whatsoever with regards to any one of a thousand pet peeves one might have with the design and/or the theme:
> 
> No amount of play will make tieflings and dragonborn (drawn by Wayne Reynolds or whoever your least favorite artist may be) disappear from your core books. They're always going to be there, on the cover of every book and every adventure you buy.​
> To suggest that you need to play the game first is to suggest that such personal preferences are invalid.
> 
> If that's the point you're trying to make, say so.




If I ever sounded like I was trying to say that I apologize. Everybody's opinion about a new system is valid. All I was saying is that it may be more influenced by emotion and initial impressions than by pure vulcanian logic. And you using the word "pet peeve" seems to imply that your dislike of these elements is not entirely rational.
And as we are talking about something we are doing just for fun, any reason to dislike a game or an element in a game are valid.


----------



## Harlekin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Given the lengthy 4Ed rollout with multiple leaks and sneak peeks and preview books, I'd have to disagree with the amount of info available prior to purchase of 4Ed vs FATAL.  We were positively blitzed with info.
> 
> Ditto to a slightly lesser extent the 3Ed rollout- which was presaged by...what, a year's worth?...of articles in Dragon magazine.
> 
> In contrast, there are RPGA, RPGnet, GameWyrd and other reviews of FATAL plus a few others.  A quick search revealed @ 49k hits, many of which were blogs, threads and simple quotes of the major ones...
> 
> At worst its a wash, at best, advantage WotC.




Prior information is not the same as an informative prior. I don't think individual snippets of information, especially in the way they were rolled out by Wotc gave any idea about how 4th edition plays. Especially as we all assembled that information in a 3rd edition context, it was really difficult to understand these new fragments. I remember being massively underwhelmed when the 2 phb-pages with the wizard spells leaked. Come to think of it, WOTC may have actually done themselves something of a disservice by the way they did the rollout this time, and i am not speaking of the hypercritical attitude they displayed towards 3.x.


----------



## Harlekin

xechnao said:


> And D&D has great production values (art, technical, supplements, marketing...). Is this what defines to be of the best designers for an rpg? The capital of Hasbro? Are rpg systems of such a technical and advanced technology that depend on financial investments?




My point there was that if a lot of money and expertise is invested into a game it is less likely to be terrible, as opposed to most fan productions. So it warrants a second look. It may of course still be pretty bad after that second look.



xechnao said:


> This is what rpg design is about more or less. So can you accept now that some people can understand a game's design just by first contact?




No, but I do believe that some people think that they understand the intricacies of a new design by first contact. After all 3rd edition had some of the finest designers working on it and it still took us years to find out where it worked and where it did not.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> No, but I do believe that some people think that they understand the intricacies of a new design by first contact. After all 3rd edition had some of the finest designers working on it and it still took us years to find out where it worked and where it did not.




It is your belief that they were the finest designers. Now, regarding time needed to understand the game: At first contact those who know can understand the feel and scope. They also can understand what the system can easily accomplish and what not by just seeing the parameters it follows and how they connect. 3e was doomed to have problems because they built it on sacred cows of previous editions but wanted to do without half of a mechanism that was necessary for those sacred cows to work: the existence of a range of random events while adventuring  -with dire consequences being a possibility. If they wanted a different game -and they did want a different game on this matter- they should have left behind many of the sacred cows first place. They did not and this created problems. But 3e was a product of elaborated systemized fluff that impressed people. People did not immediately see problems because the main problematic behind it is one of many solutions each one altering the game in a different way and you understand that thinking about such a choice is not simple. Because that would be the end of D&D as known so far. And people just wanted to play D&D.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Harlekin said:


> Yes, and as long as nothing else changes, it is easy to predict what the outcome of such a change would be. However, the more of the system changes, the harder it becomes to predict how much this rule affects actual gameplay.




It doesn't matter how many changes are made if any number of those changes, taken singly, are unacceptable.

A long list of mechanical changes does not necessarily mean that they will add up to be more than "the sum of the parts"-- which is what you mean when you say you can't predict what the outcome of lots of changes will be to the overall system. That's irrelevant. The mere fact that it is a long list of changes can be a disqualifier.



> All I was saying is that it may be more influenced by emotion and initial impressions than by pure vulcanian logic.




If you don't like 4e, it's because you lack Reason...?



> And you using the word "pet peeve" seems to imply that your dislike of these elements is not entirely rational.




Right: Disliking a game after a cursory review is an irrational decision, whereas liking a game after 120 hours of play is a rational decision. 

Whether you play for 120 hours or 1 hour will not turn an emotional decision (like or dislike) into a rational one.

You're kidding yourself, Spock.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Man, if internet professors were only more valid, I could've gone without taking those stupid logic classes and simply gone here to EN World!

Except internet professors are not valid.  Not even the strongest ones, like myself.


----------



## Harlekin

Wulf Ratbane said:


> If you don't like 4e, it's because you lack Reason...?




I don't think I ever said that. I said that if you tried to evaluate a complicated procedure/system such as a roleplaying game based on just reading the manual you are not likely to make an entirely rational decision, whether you decide you like it or whether you decide you don't like it.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> Right: Disliking a game after a cursory review is an irrational decision, whereas liking a game after 120 hours of play is a rational decision.
> 
> Whether you play for 120 hours or 1 hour will not turn an emotional decision (like or dislike) into a rational one.
> 
> You're kidding yourself, Spock.




Maybe, however I do think that evaluations based on more data are generally less emotional. Please also note that I never said or implied that a evaluation needed to go one way or the other to be "rational". A decision to reject a game after laying it for a few month is as "rational" as a decision to accept it. In fact,  the jury is still out for me.

I put "rational" in quotes up there, because rational is generally used as the opposite to emotional. However, I think the rational decision is to not play a game you are set against, as overcoming any possible initial miss-evaluation is too much effort for something that is supposed to be fun.  And this is probably even more true if your initial evaluations have a high probability of being correct.


----------



## Roman

I don't think liking or disliking a game is a matter of rationality. It is a matter of preference and preferences are inherently not rational (apart from perhaps their interrelation with other preferences). If you love Tieflings, that is not a rational preference. If you hate Tieflings, that is also not a rational preference. Nor is it rational or irrational to like or dislike gamist or simulationist styles of play. 

I suppose where rationality could come into play is in determining how well the system meshes with your preferences that are more subtle than the presence or the absence of tieflings - preferences like simulationist or gamist playstyle (Is 'playstyle' even a word?). Even then, however, it is generally enough for long-time gamers to take look at a ruleset to see whether it matches their style of play or not. For example, I like a more simulationist and a less gamist style of play. Taking a look at 4E, I have concluded that it is less suitable to my style of play than 3E, on the basis that 4E is less simulationist and more gamist. I have not played any 4E, but this became crystal-clear from my look at the ruleset. Are you suggesting that if I actually played 4E, I would discover that it is more simulationist and less gamist than 3E? I doubt it. In fact, even if there were the possibility of that, it seems so small, that it is not in fact rational for me to invest the playing/DMing time to find out whether my initial assessment is wrong or not, since this time and money can be more valuable spent on doing other things that seem to be much closer to my preference - such as playing/DMing 3E/Pathfinder.


----------



## Harlekin

Roman said:


> I suppose where rationality could come into play is in determining how well the system meshes with your preferences that are more subtle than the presence or the absence of tieflings - preferences like simulationist or gamist playstyle (Is 'playstyle' even a word?). Even then, however, it is generally enough for long-time gamers to take look at a ruleset to see whether it matches their style of play or not. For example, I like a more simulationist and a less gamist style of play. Taking a look at 4E, I have concluded that it is less suitable to my style of play than 3E, on the basis that 4E is less simulationist and more gamist. I have not played any 4E, but this became crystal-clear from my look at the ruleset. Are you suggesting that if I actually played 4E, I would discover that it is more simulationist and less gamist than 3E? I doubt it. In fact, even if there were the possibility of that, it seems so small, that it is not in fact rational for me to invest the playing/DMing time to find out whether my initial assessment is wrong or not, since this time and money can be more valuable spent on doing other things that seem to be much closer to my preference - such as playing/DMing 3E/Pathfinder.




The simulationist-gamist split is actually the prime example I would use. If you are interested in simulationist play, deciding between 3rd and 4th edition is like deciding whether you want to use a screwdriver or a set of pliers to drive  a nail into a wall. Neither one works very well, but if you are used to using a screwdriver, the pliers will look like the silliest tool out there for that job. And vice versa.

To bring this back to D&D, D&D has always been among the most gamist systems on the market. AC,HP, classes and levels have always been elements that don't make much sense but that work darn well in a game. However, we have 20 or so years of experiences in mapping the gamisms of 1st -3rd edition D&D to  some level of verisimilitude and we learned in the same time to explain all the other artifacts away or ignore them. 4th edition introduces a new set of artifacts and gamisms which we would have to get used to before we felt comfortable with them. Only then could you say if 4th or 3.x works better for the type of game you are trying to play.

But to reiterate: If you happy with 3.x, there is no reason why you should do that to yourself.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> The simulationist-gamist split is actually the prime example I would use. If you are interested in simulationist play, deciding between 3rd and 4th edition is like deciding whether you want to use a screwdriver or a set of pliers to drive  a nail into a wall. Neither one works very well, but if you are used to using a screwdriver, the pliers will look like the silliest tool out there for that job. And vice versa.
> 
> To bring this back to D&D, D&D has always been among the most gamist systems on the market. AC,HP, classes and levels have always been elements that don't make much sense but that work darn well in a game. However, we have 20 or so years of experiences in mapping the gamisms of 1st -3rd edition D&D to  some level of verisimilitude and we learned in the same time to explain all the other artifacts away or ignore them. 4th edition introduces a new set of artifacts and gamisms which we would have to get used to before we felt comfortable with them. Only then could you say if 4th or 3.x works better for the type of game you are trying to play.
> 
> But to reiterate: If you happy with 3.x, there is no reason why you should do that to yourself.





Classic D&D was not offending verismilitude. It just had limited options to suit what the game was all about.
The game was strategic -not tactical- and was build like this:
You have three types of units: one that could offer big solutions but had no resistance (wizard), one that could offer solutions of medium scope and had a bit more of resistance (mixed classes) and finally one with solutions of even smaller scope but higher resistance (fighter). There is also room for a fixer-patcher -one who fixes things using medium solutions and a bit of resistance (priest). It was a complete strategic game by offering objectives and consequences. 3e failed to this last part. Yet it provided a way to expand the fluff within the mechanics of the system. This seemed to beat the limits of the game and many see it as a direction towards simulationism.    
4e limits things again because it inherently defines objectives and consequences by being a purely tactical game of miniatures (and it does offend verisimilitude in some aspects and cases). Yet it is a more complete design for a game than 3e was. But it is not hard for some people to see what the 4e game is about and to decide if they want to play this kind of game or not.


----------



## Harlekin

xechnao said:


> Classic D&D was not offending verismilitude. It just had limited options to suit what the game was all about.




Hey Xeno, sorry for not answering your earlier posts. I am not trying to ignore you. However, I have a hard time parsing your posts, I think this is in part because we are using terms very differently.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> Hey Xeno, sorry for not answering your earlier posts. I am not trying to ignore you. However, I have a hard time parsing your posts, I think this is in part because we are using terms very differently.





I do try to condense things here. If there is anything that needs addressing just ask. Which term or rather phrase are you talking about? Was it about the phrase you quoted? If so what bothers you there?


----------



## merelycompetent

Roman said:


> I don't think liking or disliking a game is a matter of rationality. It is a matter of preference and preferences are inherently not rational (apart from perhaps their interrelation with other preferences). If you love Tieflings, that is not a rational preference. If you hate Tieflings, that is also not a rational preference. Nor is it rational or irrational to like or dislike gamist or simulationist styles of play.




Good! That means you can show me a rational way to convert my homebrew 3.5E campaign world, its plotlines, and all its NPCs, to 4E without having to rewrite half of it. 'Cause some of those basic mechanics changes really mess up existing NPCs, from what I've read and experimented with. I fully acknowledge that my opinions and conclusions about the level of difficulty and level of effort involved may be way off. And I eagerly await your well-reasoned, balanced, and rational solution to the problem. I also personally know another half-dozen DMs who would jump on a solution like that.


----------



## xechnao

Harlekin said:


> Hey Xeno, sorry for not answering your earlier posts. I am not trying to ignore you. However, I have a hard time parsing your posts, I think this is in part because we are using terms very differently.




Ok let me have a try. If your issue is with HPs and AC these were mechanic means of tracking resistance. In this sense it does not offend verisimilitude. But it can offend it when it connects with feats that track and differentiate specific toe to toe maneuvers. But 3e was open ended so we can try to ignore this -3e was not even a complete game (or if it was, it was flawed due to failed balances). 4e OTOH is not open ended and as a game it is complete and closed and its failures in this aspect of verisimilitude offense are less ignorable.


----------



## Roman

merelycompetent said:


> Good! That means you can show me a rational way to convert my homebrew 3.5E campaign world, its plotlines, and all its NPCs, to 4E without having to rewrite half of it. 'Cause some of those basic mechanics changes really mess up existing NPCs, from what I've read and experimented with. I fully acknowledge that my opinions and conclusions about the level of difficulty and level of effort involved may be way off. And I eagerly await your well-reasoned, balanced, and rational solution to the problem. I also personally know another half-dozen DMs who would jump on a solution like that.




Color me confused. I say that liking or disliking a game is not a matter of rationality, but rather of preferences and you essentially ask me for a rational rationale (pun intended) as to why you should like 4E? There isn't any! As I said, rationality in terms of liking a game or not can only manifest in terms of the interaction between the preferences. As such, if your preference is to continue with your current campaign without extensive conversion, it is 'rational' for you to do so. Of course, it is only 'rational' in so far as that is your overriding preference, towering over other preferences you might have that might or might not pull you away from 3E.


----------



## Roman

Harlekin said:


> The simulationist-gamist split is actually the prime example I would use. If you are interested in simulationist play, deciding between 3rd and 4th edition is like deciding whether you want to use a screwdriver or a set of pliers to drive  a nail into a wall. Neither one works very well, but if you are used to using a screwdriver, the pliers will look like the silliest tool out there for that job. And vice versa.
> 
> To bring this back to D&D, D&D has always been among the most gamist systems on the market.




D&D is perhaps not the most simulationist system, but I still want to play D&D with simulationism and not some other fantasy game - I like the D&D magic-wielding dragons, I like D&D's take on planar beings, etcetera. Besides, I think some editions are clearly more simulationist than others - the presence or absence of even more simulationist games does not change that and is irrelevant for me. Besides, there are various levels of simulationism and gamism and even if you prefer say gamism overall, going too far in that direction might not be something you enjoy. 3E is sufficiently simulationist that I can accept it (albeit I do modify it) - I would prefer more simulationism than that (up to a point of course), sure, but take too much simulationism away and I lose interest in the game. 



> AC,HP, classes and levels have always been elements that don't make much sense but that work darn well in a game. However, we have 20 or so years of experiences in mapping the gamisms of 1st -3rd edition D&D to  some level of verisimilitude and we learned in the same time to explain all the other artifacts away or ignore them. 4th edition introduces a new set of artifacts and gamisms which we would have to get used to before we felt comfortable with them. Only then could you say if 4th or 3.x works better for the type of game you are trying to play.




Oh come on - we all know that the way HP, for example, is structured in 3E is not particularly simulationist, but the direction that 4E moved in is even less simulationist (even in the HP example used). There is a point beyond which I am not willing to go. 

I also want to make sure that we are on the same page here when discussing simulationism, so let me say what I understand by it. For me, simulationism in a game means that the rules strive to be representations of in-game reality. Not that any system succeeds at that completely - nor would I want it to succeed perfectly (that would indeed be going too far) - hence there are degrees of simulationism. For example, if a dragon has certain statistics, he will retain the same statistics if encountered by the party, regardless of the party's level, unless there is an in-game (as opposed to metagame) reason to change them. Simulationism is not fully a function of the ruleset, but also of the DM's/GM's style, but ruleset does play an important role. 



> But to reiterate: If you happy with 3.x, there is no reason why you should do that to yourself.




That's exactly my point about rationality. By looking at 4E, I can tell with reasonable accuracy that it is less suitable to my gaming needs than 3E. The chance of 4E meeting my preferences better than 3E is pretty small. As such, the invesment of time and money to 'test', on the off-chance that it is correct, the hypothesis that 4E might meet my gaming preferences better than 3E, could well be considered irrational - after all, Potential Payoff = Size of Potential Benefit x Likelihood of Potential Benefit.


----------



## merelycompetent

Roman said:


> Color me confused. I say that liking or disliking a game is not a matter of rationality, but rather of preferences and you essentially ask me for a rational rationale (pun intended) as to why you should like 4E? There isn't any! As I said, rationality in terms of liking a game or not can only manifest in terms of the interaction between the preferences. As such, if your preference is to continue with your current campaign without extensive conversion, it is 'rational' for you to do so. Of course, it is only 'rational' in so far as that is your overriding preference, towering over other preferences you might have that might or might not pull you away from 3E.




No. I asked you for a rational method to resolve my primary dislike of 4E. I think that we can agree (and I am making an assumption here) that there is no rational method, at this time, to resolve my primary dislike of 4E. Unless you have a method to do so, I don't think you can make a logical argument that my preference is irrational.

However, you are (as far as I can tell) starting from the premise that my dislike of 4E is irrational. That theory does not hold up under scrutiny: My dislike of 4E is directly due to a rational and reasoned analysis of the challenges using 4E creates for my particular situation. Coming to the conclusion that I do not like 4E, under these circumstances, is demonstrably NOT irrational.

Furthermore, since every decision we make is based on "preferences", your description dictates that there is no way that ANY decision can be rational. That simply does not make sense, especially in the sophistry of words you're using.

(excerpted from dictionary.com)
Rational - 1.     agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.; 2.     having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.; 3.     being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.;... 6.     proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

Preference - 1. the act of preferring (preferring - 1.     to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken.)

I "prefer" to not switch to 4E for my current campaign world, since I have conducted a rational analysis of the work required for it. Therefore, my "disklike" is "rational" - it is reasoned, reasonable, consists of sound judgement, and is sane.

Calling my dislike irrational ignores the definitions of the words.

(edited last two paragraphs for word choice)


----------



## Treebore

I play a game to find out if I like it. Once upon a time I thought I could make a good judgement just by reading through the rules. If I was right I would hate Shadowrun, L5R, Aces and Eights, and others I can't think of right now. However I played them, despite thinking the rules sucked, and I have loved the games ever since.

I read a lot about 4E, was very sure I would not like it, but I had to play it to make sure I did not make a mistake like I would have with the other games. It just so happens this time I was right. I don't like 4E, but now I can say so for sure, because I played it weekly for over two months, 3 to 4 hours at a shot.

Now I am not saying 4E sucks. The rules seem very solid, and role playing is definitely as doable as any other iteration, it just did not excite me. It fell flat. So I stayed with what I like.


So I say that to truly judge a game accurately you do need to play it, but playing it does not mean you will change your mind, it just means you gave the game every chance to excite you. If it changes your mind, and excites you, then your glad you did play it to see how all the rules work together, what kind of synergy the rules create.

If it still fails to excite you, hopefully you played with a good group and shared a lot of laughs, like I did, so the time spent still wasn't a waste.

So based on my experience, I do not believe you can give a game an honest shake without playing it. Reading the rules does not tell you how it will play any more than looking at a car will tell you how well it drives.

This is also why I quit writing reviews. Reading a module does not tell you how much fun you can have actually running it. There are modules that read as if they would play very boring, but my group had a blast. There are modules that read like they would be fun, engrossing, and be awesome, but fell flat and were frustrating.

Plus tastes just vary. There were 3E WOTC books that people slammed, and I ignored them for a long time. Then I finally looked at them myself, and liked or even loved them. So not only do I no longer write reviews, I don't read them anymore either. I check things out for myself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Treebore said:


> Reading the rules does not tell you how it will play any more than looking at a car will tell you how well it drives.




I have to disagree, still.

I can tell a lot about whether I'd like a car just by looking at it, starting off with the fact that I'm not buying anything with a manual transmission. I'm not buying anything that is designed primarily for off-road use.  I'm not buying anything with fewer than 3 doors and 4 seats.  I won't buy a car that requires the use of premium fuel.  I won't buy a ragtop convertible, and a hardtop is a hard sell too.  Cars with any one of those qualities are automatically off my list- for one reason or another, they _absolutely will not work_ for my lifestyle.

If you include "reading about a car" to be equivalent to "looking at it," you can add the fact that any car with a historically poor service record is also cut from my list without a test drive.

Same deal for 4Ed: it simply had too many features that I didn't care for- I didn't need to take it for a spin.


----------



## Treebore

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have to disagree, still.
> 
> I can tell a lot about whether I'd like a car just by looking at it, starting off with the fact that I'm not buying anything with a manual transmission. I'm not buying anything that is designed primarily for off-road use.  I'm not buying anything with fewer than 3 doors and 4 seats.  I won't buy a car that requires the use of premium fuel.  I won't buy a ragtop convertible, and a hardtop is a hard sell too.  Cars with any one of those qualities are automatically off my list- for one reason or another, they _absolutely will not work_ for my lifestyle.
> 
> If you include "reading about a car" to be equivalent to "looking at it," you can add the fact that any car with a historically poor service record is also cut from my list without a test drive.
> 
> Same deal for 4Ed: it simply had too many features that I didn't care for- I didn't need to take it for a spin.




Well, we obviously disagree. I'm just saying why I think differently than you. 

No, I do not include reading a car to reading about it. A car has hard statistical data telling you exactly how it should operate, etc... such data is not available for RPG's.

As for 4E, I didn't like its features either, I thought I wouldn't like how they worked either. I had similar thoughts about many other RPG's too. Many times I was right, but I found times I was wrong. I wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong. So I played. This time I wasn't wrong. Since I also played with a good group of people it wasn't a waste of my time either.

I have read posts of others who thought they wouldn't like 4E, then they played, like I did. They ended up liking 4E.

Do you know with absolute surety you won't like 4E? Nope. You never will until you play. At this point you have yourself convinced you wouldn't like it. You would probably end up still feeling the same after playing, like I did. However it is not an obsolute certainty until you play it and see how it actually runs.

Your obviously fine with not being absolutely certain. However, considering how much fun I ended up having playing some games I thought I would hate, and the fact it was "D&D", my favorite style of RPG for over 20 years, I had to be absolutely and postively sure I did not like 4E, so I played it. Now I know, with nearly 30 hours of play time, that I do not like 4E.

Your able to be convinced well enough without playing it, I needed to play it to be certain. Just part of how people are different. Thats all.


----------



## Roman

merelycompetent said:


> No. I asked you for a rational method to resolve my primary dislike of 4E. I think that we can agree (and I am making an assumption here) that there is no rational method, at this time, to resolve my primary dislike of 4E. Unless you have a method to do so, I don't think you can make a logical argument that my preference is irrational.
> 
> However, you are (as far as I can tell) starting from the premise that my dislike of 4E is irrational. That theory does not hold up under scrutiny: My dislike of 4E is directly due to a rational and reasoned analysis of the challenges using 4E creates for my particular situation. Coming to the conclusion that I do not like 4E, under these circumstances, is demonstrably NOT irrational.




I guess I am saying that liking or disliking a system is arational - neither rational nor irrational.  



> Furthermore, since every decision we make is based on "preferences", your description dictates that there is no way that ANY decision can be rational. That simply does not make sense, especially in the sophistry of words you're using.
> 
> (excerpted from dictionary.com)
> Rational - 1.     agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.; 2.     having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.; 3.     being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.;... 6.     proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
> 
> Preference - 1. the act of preferring (preferring - 1.     to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken.)
> 
> I "prefer" to not switch to 4E for my current campaign world, since I have conducted a rational analysis of the work required for it. Therefore, my "disklike" is "rational" - it is reasoned, reasonable, consists of sound judgement, and is sane.
> 
> Calling my dislike irrational ignores the definitions of the words.
> 
> (edited last two paragraphs for word choice)




If you use a strict definition of rationality, it is a decision-making process. Preferences as such cannot be rational or not - these are apriori goals. Rationality can be used as a process to decide on something based on the preferences as inputs, but the preferences themselves are not rational or irrational. That's what I am trying to say, because in my experience many people conflate the decision-making process with the preferences themselves. I think we are mostly in agreement on that - we are just approaching it from slightly different angles.


----------



## Roman

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have to disagree, still.
> 
> I can tell a lot about whether I'd like a car just by looking at it, starting off with the fact that I'm not buying anything with a manual transmission. I'm not buying anything that is designed primarily for off-road use.  I'm not buying anything with fewer than 3 doors and 4 seats.  I won't buy a car that requires the use of premium fuel.  I won't buy a ragtop convertible, and a hardtop is a hard sell too.  Cars with any one of those qualities are automatically off my list- for one reason or another, they _absolutely will not work_ for my lifestyle.
> 
> If you include "reading about a car" to be equivalent to "looking at it," you can add the fact that any car with a historically poor service record is also cut from my list without a test drive.
> 
> Same deal for 4Ed: it simply had too many features that I didn't care for- I didn't need to take it for a spin.




That's a pretty good analogy on your part. You can tell a great deal about a car by looking at it and reading about it - you don't need to buy it to test it out for a few months. This is all the more the case if you know a good amount about car mechanics and have been driving and modifying cars for decade(s) - as I (and I would guess a not insignificant number of other gamers) have played, DMed and modified D&D. Yes, your analogy is a good one.


----------



## Roman

Treebore said:


> Well, we obviously disagree. I'm just saying why I think differently than you.
> 
> No, I do not include reading a car to reading about it. A car has hard statistical data telling you exactly how it should operate, etc... such data is not available for RPG's.




RPGs do you one better - they give you almost their entire workings (though not necessarily the decisions behind them) in the book! 



> As for 4E, I didn't like its features either, I thought I wouldn't like how they worked either. I had similar thoughts about many other RPG's too. Many times I was right, but I found times I was wrong. I wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong. So I played. This time I wasn't wrong. Since I also played with a good group of people it wasn't a waste of my time either.
> 
> I have read posts of others who thought they wouldn't like 4E, then they played, like I did. They ended up liking 4E.
> 
> Do you know with absolute surety you won't like 4E? Nope. You never will until you play. At this point you have yourself convinced you wouldn't like it. You would probably end up still feeling the same after playing, like I did. However it is not an obsolute certainty until you play it and see how it actually runs.
> 
> Your obviously fine with not being absolutely certain. However, considering how much fun I ended up having playing some games I thought I would hate, and the fact it was "D&D", my favorite style of RPG for over 20 years, I had to be absolutely and postively sure I did not like 4E, so I played it. Now I know, with nearly 30 hours of play time, that I do not like 4E.




You are correct that you will never 'know' with absolute certainty whether you like the game until you play it, but you can know with a very large degree of certainty. Heck, even if you play it you will never know with 'absolute' certainty that you don't like it - maybe the sessions you played all turned out to be unlucky... If your degree of certainty that you won't like it is high enough, however, the investment of time and money into the game is not worth it to find out, when you could be using this time and money to do something you know you enjoy. 

Besides, if you end up not liking it, but paid for the books (rather than just having read them to a store) you end up financially supporting a decision to shift the game to a different than your own demographic. You may be fine with that, but I would have a problem paying for something that deliberately set out to ignore my preferences/concerns in favor of a different demographic. That, though, is going a bit off-topic. 



> Your able to be convinced well enough without playing it, I needed to play it to be certain. Just part of how people are different. Thats all.




Tha'ts perfectly fine. Nobody is blaming you for that in any way shape or form. What we are arguing, however, is that it is not necessary for us to play 4E to know (with a very reasonable degree of certainty) that we don't like it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have to disagree, still.
> 
> I can tell a lot about whether I'd like a car just by looking at it, starting off with the fact that I'm not buying anything with a manual transmission. I'm not buying anything that is designed primarily for off-road use.  I'm not buying anything with fewer than 3 doors and 4 seats.  I won't buy a car that requires the use of premium fuel.  I won't buy a ragtop convertible, and a hardtop is a hard sell too.  Cars with any one of those qualities are automatically off my list- for one reason or another, they _absolutely will not work_ for my lifestyle.




It is a perfect analogy-- and you didn't even mention not liking the red paint job.


----------



## Treebore

Roman said:


> RPGs do you one better - they give you almost their entire workings (though not necessarily the decisions behind them) in the book!
> 
> Tha'ts perfectly fine. Nobody is blaming you for that in any way shape or form. What we are arguing, however, is that it is not necessary for us to play 4E to know (with a very reasonable degree of certainty) that we don't like it.





RPG's give you their entire workings, but you don't know how well those mechanics work until you actually use them.

I agree, but reasonable certainty was not good enough for me. Like I said, D&D has been my favorite RPG for nearly 25 years now, so I had to be absolutely certain I wasn't going to like the most recent iteration. 

Fortunately not liking it was no big loss, I just play the iteration I do like.


----------



## merelycompetent

Roman said:


> I guess I am saying that liking or disliking a system is arational - neither rational nor irrational.




Fair enough. I disagree that liking/disliking is "arational", but that's better than labeling it irrational.



> If you use a strict definition of rationality, it is a decision-making process.



Here, I strongly disagree. The strict definition of rationality is *more* than a decision-making process. Here, you appear to be using one definition of rationality, when several can apply.



> Preferences as such cannot be rational or not - these are apriori goals. Rationality can be used as a process to decide on something based on the preferences as inputs, but the preferences themselves are not rational or irrational. That's what I am trying to say, because in my experience many people conflate the decision-making process with the preferences themselves. I think we are mostly in agreement on that - we are just approaching it from slightly different angles.



I think we're going to have to agree to disagree - you are, in my opinion, assigning new definitions to the terminology you are using when precision and care are very important. That, to me, makes your assertions fundamentally flawed. For me, a preference and a like/dislike can be arrived at through logical thought processes - such as analysis of a game system (though the type of analysis may introduce flaws, as Wulf, Treebore, and others have posted about). Therefore, the preference/like/dislike is rational. I haven't seen anything posted here (or elsewhere) that effectively counters that conclusion without monkeying with definitions of the words involved.

With that in mind, I do not agree that the preferences posted here and on other threads about 4E are irrational or conflated. I don't have enough information to make such a determination for the simple reason that only a few posters have listed how they came to their preference. In those cases, the majority seem very rational to me.

Since I've probably bored a lot of people to tears, let me close this with a request: Please don't label my likes, dislikes, or preferences as a blanket "irrational" unless you can prove it conclusively. Most of them (and especially the ones about 4E) I have arrived at through careful consideration, study, and/or experimentation. Calling them "irrational" is insulting.


----------

