Y'see, you have no more proof that that's actually the case than we do that it's not.Internet anger against WotC is a representation of a dissatisfied customer base.
Man, if you think that internet anger is an accurate representation of the real-life acceptance of a product, you've been living on a different internet.No, it's a representation of a relatively small but angry portion of their customer base.
Of course.
You've already said you'd accept more generally glowing praise online as a reflection of a general love of the new game. Yet you don't accept a fifty-fifty(ish) split online as a reflection of anything. That seems a contradiction to me.
And, again, this is because of how the concept of the vocal minority works. Getting people to post praise for something they really like is a lot tougher than getting someone to be angry at something they don't like. People who are satisfied with something will generally just use it. People who are dissatisfied with something - especially something they perceive as a betrayal - tend much more towards complaining about it vocally.
I'm saying fifty percent of D&D groups won't go 4e. Or anything like that. I am saying, to completely dismiss all complaints and voiced intent online not to switch (this time) as you seem to be doing, is just plain short sighted.
I'm not dismissing them all. Some people really don't like 4th Edition, obviously. But not enough for it to affect WotC's bottom line, especially if they're able to bring in new gamers with the more streamlined rules system to replace the ones that have left.
I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.Maybe. The difference is only in that products for 3.5 will continue to be released. WotC didn't burn all your old 3.5 material when they changed editions. If a group wanted to stick with 3.5, they could easily stick with 3.5 regardless of Pathfinder's existence.
That is a difference. I think it's a major difference.I think it's a difference, but not a major difference.
I'd like to know how 4e is nearer in feel to 2e, than 3e was? Imo that's an absurd comment, and probably not one WotC would want to be true anyway.I have no idea, it's not me who has been saying it. Then again, I have difficulty understanding people who say that 4th Edition doesn't have the "feel" of D&D.
Eh, not really the theme of this thread ... but hey what the hell. Off the top of my head, for example ... are you saying that playing a mage in 4e feels like playing a mage from any earlier edition?
Eh, not really the theme of this thread ... but hey what the hell. Off the top of my head, for example ... are you saying that playing a mage in 4e feels like playing a mage from any earlier edition?I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.Maybe. The difference is only in that products for 3.5 will continue to be released. WotC didn't burn all your old 3.5 material when they changed editions. If a group wanted to stick with 3.5, they could easily stick with 3.5 regardless of Pathfinder's existence.
That is a difference. I think it's a major difference.I think it's a difference, but not a major difference.
I'd like to know how 4e is nearer in feel to 2e, than 3e was? Imo that's an absurd comment, and probably not one WotC would want to be true anyway.I have no idea, it's not me who has been saying it. Then again, I have difficulty understanding people who say that 4th Edition doesn't have the "feel" of D&D.
You mean a Wizard?
Yes. Playing a Wizard in 4th Edition feels like playing a Wizard in 3.5. I still cast spells, use wands/staves/whatever, manipulate arcane energies and can even wear a pointy hat, all the while exploring dungeons and slaying monsters with my other make-believe buddies.
Y'see, you have no more proof that that's actually the case than we do that it's not.Internet anger against WotC is a representation of a dissatisfied customer base.
Man, if you think that internet anger is an accurate representation of the real-life acceptance of a product, you've been living on a different internet.No, it's a representation of a relatively small but angry portion of their customer base.
Of course.
You've already said you'd accept more generally glowing praise online as a reflection of a general love of the new game. Yet you don't accept a fifty-fifty(ish) split online as a reflection of anything. That seems a contradiction to me.And, again, this is because of how the concept of the vocal minority works. Getting people to post praise for something they really like is a lot tougher than getting someone to be angry at something they don't like.
I'm saying fifty percent of D&D groups won't go 4e. Or anything like that. I am saying, to completely dismiss all complaints and voiced intent online not to switch (this time) as you seem to be doing, is just plain short sighted.I'm not dismissing them all. Some people really don't like 4th Edition, obviously. But not enough for it to affect WotC's bottom line, especially if they're able to bring in new gamers with the more streamlined rules system to replace the ones that have left.
I can certainly understand WotC wishing to cash in on some of the massive action WoW has, I'm just not convinced WoW players will switch - again I'm no expert, but I know plenty of 'normal' (ie non-gamers) people who play WoW and I just can't see them having any interest in playing ANY edition of D&D - it's a different thing to playing a computer game, and like it or not, computer games have a degree of street cred, tabletop rpgs don't.
Eh, not really the theme of this thread ... but hey what the hell. Off the top of my head, for example ... are you saying that playing a mage in 4e feels like playing a mage from any earlier edition?I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.Maybe. The difference is only in that products for 3.5 will continue to be released. WotC didn't burn all your old 3.5 material when they changed editions. If a group wanted to stick with 3.5, they could easily stick with 3.5 regardless of Pathfinder's existence.
That is a difference. I think it's a major difference.I think it's a difference, but not a major difference.
I'd like to know how 4e is nearer in feel to 2e, than 3e was? Imo that's an absurd comment, and probably not one WotC would want to be true anyway.I have no idea, it's not me who has been saying it. Then again, I have difficulty understanding people who say that 4th Edition doesn't have the "feel" of D&D.You mean a Wizard?
Yes. Playing a Wizard in 4th Edition feels like playing a Wizard in 3.5. I still cast spells, use wands/staves/whatever, manipulate arcane energies and can even wear a pointy hat, all the while exploring dungeons and slaying monsters with my other make-believe buddies.
Heh heh, nice try, but you're vaguing it up massively there and you know it. Come on, admit it, good or ill, removing the Vancian magic system is a BIG change, and inevitably big changes affect the feel of a game.
Heck, magic user or wizard, whatever you want to call it, you could play what you just described using a diceless system ... would that feel like old school D&D too?
Mmmm, I doubt it. Movies are ad-driven for the most part and focus on heavy marketing. Role-playing games usually emphasize word-of-mouth marketing instead, which tends to take longer to spread. Sales will certainly decrease over time, which is true with most things, but I don't think you'll see a movie-style drop in purchasing. We're two months out of release and the books just went into their third printing. So if this is opening weekend, it's one hell of an opening weekend.
A more interesting question is: with increased availability of preorder options and online marketing and shopping, are the sales of new D&D editions (and other RPG products) merely getting compressed into an ever-smaller window?I remember that it took me almost a month to get my hands on a 2nd edition PHB - and I was hunting for one rather hard. This time, I got 4 of 'em (mine, wife's, and 2 gifts) in the first day after release.
It could be simply like the blockbusterization of movie sales: sell lots in the first weekend, and drop off precipitously a couple days after that.
Are RPG's still spread by word-of-mouth? Most of my favorite hobby stores have closed, and I now do most of my shopping for (and talking about) D&D online. Unfortunately, I do not know any RPG gamers in my town apart from my own small group.
I'm not claiming to have an answer on this - and I hope this theory is wrong - but it is possible that the D&D market is still slowly contracting, despite the encouraging initial burst of 4e sales.
Personally, I really hope that WOTC comes up with a killer introductory game, and finds a way to recruit a fresh new wave of players. Because I think the new edition is very interesting and easy to play, but it isn't self-explanatory straight out of the PHB.
I think they did a great job in the new DMG with good advice for new and old DM's on how to run a great game. But I don't think the PHB accomplishes the same thing for players.
I can certainly understand WotC wishing to cash in on some of the massive action WoW has, I'm just not convinced WoW players will switch - again I'm no expert, but I know plenty of 'normal' (ie non-gamers) people who play WoW and I just can't see them having any interest in playing ANY edition of D&D - it's a different thing to playing a computer game, and like it or not, computer games have a degree of street cred, tabletop rpgs don't.Y'see, you have no more proof that that's actually the case than we do that it's not.Internet anger against WotC is a representation of a dissatisfied customer base.
Man, if you think that internet anger is an accurate representation of the real-life acceptance of a product, you've been living on a different internet.No, it's a representation of a relatively small but angry portion of their customer base.
Of course.
You've already said you'd accept more generally glowing praise online as a reflection of a general love of the new game. Yet you don't accept a fifty-fifty(ish) split online as a reflection of anything. That seems a contradiction to me.And, again, this is because of how the concept of the vocal minority works. Getting people to post praise for something they really like is a lot tougher than getting someone to be angry at something they don't like.
I'm saying fifty percent of D&D groups won't go 4e. Or anything like that. I am saying, to completely dismiss all complaints and voiced intent online not to switch (this time) as you seem to be doing, is just plain short sighted.I'm not dismissing them all. Some people really don't like 4th Edition, obviously. But not enough for it to affect WotC's bottom line, especially if they're able to bring in new gamers with the more streamlined rules system to replace the ones that have left.
I wasn't talking about grabbing new players from the WoW crowd.
Heh heh, nice try, but you're vaguing it up massively there and you know it. Come on, admit it, good or ill, removing the Vancian magic system is a BIG change, and inevitably big changes affect the feel of a game.Eh, not really the theme of this thread ... but hey what the hell. Off the top of my head, for example ... are you saying that playing a mage in 4e feels like playing a mage from any earlier edition?I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.Maybe. The difference is only in that products for 3.5 will continue to be released. WotC didn't burn all your old 3.5 material when they changed editions. If a group wanted to stick with 3.5, they could easily stick with 3.5 regardless of Pathfinder's existence.
That is a difference. I think it's a major difference.I think it's a difference, but not a major difference.
I'd like to know how 4e is nearer in feel to 2e, than 3e was? Imo that's an absurd comment, and probably not one WotC would want to be true anyway.I have no idea, it's not me who has been saying it. Then again, I have difficulty understanding people who say that 4th Edition doesn't have the "feel" of D&D.You mean a Wizard?
Yes. Playing a Wizard in 4th Edition feels like playing a Wizard in 3.5. I still cast spells, use wands/staves/whatever, manipulate arcane energies and can even wear a pointy hat, all the while exploring dungeons and slaying monsters with my other make-believe buddies.
Actually, towards the end of 3.5 I never played an arcane caster without a reserve feat that allowed me some non-vancian combat utility all day long. 4th Edition's system isn't all that different from how 3.5 ended up playing. And really, Vancian casting was just a mechanic. It never determined the feel of playing a Wizard. And yes, I could do all of that in a diceless system.
I ask the question a lot of us would like answered. How do you know?Internet anger against WotC is a representation of a dissatisfied customer base.No, it's a representation of a relatively small but angry portion of their customer base.
I don't.
And please don't just tell me about your accurate observations.
What else would you like me to tell you?
You speak as if what you're saying is established fact.
So do you. Shall we preface every sentence with "IMHO", or just understand that, as has been said many times, neither of us is an authority?
Unless you've been hanging out on all the message boards and conducting an independent survey of them, you really have no way of know what percentage of the customer base is involved.
Which is why I haven't given one.
Also, you have apparently never worked in retail, or wholesale. To a mercantile corporation, one complaint is equated with many complaints. The exact number is a matter for the mysterious world of marketing. When enough of these amorphous complaints pile up, marketing talks to the CEO, and, suddenly, changes are made. To those who work at the store level, it's baffling and annoying and inexplicable.
But it happens.
Sometimes. But not all the time. It is, again, a matter for marketing to determine if the complaints warrant a change.
And that's why this "small percentage", this "vocal minority" is going to cause things to happen. Money-wise, it's unavoidable. It's just a matter of what marketing and the higher-ups decide to do. WotC is likely going to be the last to be consulted.
We'll see.
Playing a Wizard in 4th Edition feels like playing a Wizard in 3.5. I still cast spells, use wands/staves/whatever, manipulate arcane energies and can even wear a pointy hat, all the while exploring dungeons and slaying monsters with my other make-believe buddies.
Heh heh, nice try, but you're vaguing it up massively there and you know it. Come on, admit it, good or ill, removing the Vancian magic system is a BIG change, and inevitably big changes affect the feel of a game.Heck, magic user or wizard, whatever you want to call it, you could play what you just described using a diceless system...
I'm witholding judgement on wizards (and whether wizards feel like magic-users) for a couple reasons:
1) Nobody has played one yet at our game table, and2) Once we have more rituals and rules for alchemy and more magic items, it'll be easier to judge.
My 1e wizard (M-U) became an effective every-round, 23-hour-a-day spellcater through clever use of items and a lot of persistent/contingent/broken spells. My 3.5e wizard became an effective every-round, 23-hour-a-day spellcasting machine through liberal use of wands of shocking grasp and scrolls and potions.
Now with 4e, I don't have to come up with complicated schemes to have something 'wizardly' to do every round. But the end result is the same: I'll have a couple tricks that I can use pretty much all the time, and a few other powers for really kicking butt. And some non-combat spells (rituals) to do the really cool stuff.
When I get around to making a wizard, I'll try out a few rituals, and no doubt make up a few of my own. With a bit of clever planning, I expect that my character will feel a lot like the ones I've played before Certainly as similar as any of my wizards have felt relative to each other.
Which is why I haven't given one.You're right. But you imply when others talk about that percentage, that it's much smaller than they think it is.
How do you know?
I don't. It's my opinion that they are incorrect about their estimation.
Playing a Wizard in 4th Edition feels like playing a Wizard in 3.5. I still cast spells, use wands/staves/whatever, manipulate arcane energies and can even wear a pointy hat, all the while exploring dungeons and slaying monsters with my other make-believe buddies.
Heh heh, nice try, but you're vaguing it up massively there and you know it. Come on, admit it, good or ill, removing the Vancian magic system is a BIG change, and inevitably big changes affect the feel of a game.Heck, magic user or wizard, whatever you want to call it, you could play what you just described using a diceless system...
I'm witholding judgement on wizards (and whether wizards feel like magic-users) for a couple reasons:
1) Nobody has played one yet at our game table, and2) Once we have more rituals and rules for alchemy and more magic items, it'll be easier to judge.
My 1e wizard (M-U) became an effective every-round, 23-hour-a-day spellcater through clever use of items and a lot of persistent/contingent/broken spells. My 3.5e wizard became an effective every-round, 23-hour-a-day spellcasting machine through liberal use of wands of shocking grasp and scrolls and potions.
Now with 4e, I don't have to come up with complicated schemes to have something 'wizardly' to do every round. But the end result is the same: I'll have a couple tricks that I can use pretty much all the time, and a few other powers for really kicking butt. And some non-combat spells (rituals) to do the really cool stuff.
Yup, that's pretty much how it goes.
When I get around to making a wizard, I'll try out a few rituals, and no doubt make up a few of my own.
Make sure to check out the expanded rituals on their website. There are a lot more now than just those in the PHB.
With a bit of clever planning, I expect that my character will feel a lot like the ones I've played before Certainly as similar as any of my wizards have felt relative to each other.
Pretty much.
O.o
Sheesh you go and do some gardening and the thread goes all caddywumpus.
I could make another plea for civility and everyone just going and enjoying whatever game engine they like, but ... meh ... no one listened to me the last dozen times I tried it.
Monkey ...OUT!
Scampers back to the PbP threads
Heh heh, nice try, but you're vaguing it up massively there and you know it. Come on, admit it, good or ill, removing the Vancian magic system is a BIG change, and inevitably big changes affect the feel of a game.
I just had another thought:
Back in 3.x (and 2e), my wizards typically memorized several combat spells, and kept pearls of power to recharge those. I then left as many other slots as possible open, and flipped open a book to quickly memorize (and immediately cast) the appropriate utility spells only when I needed them.Boy that sounds a lot like encounter powers and rituals.
But of course, I have always found the Vancian system limiting , and I've devoted a great deal of time and rule-stretching to figure ways around its limitations.
Please, then, allow other people to have their own opinions about that estimation.I don't. It's my opinion that they are incorrect about their estimation.Which is why I haven't given one.You're right. But you imply when others talk about that percentage, that it's much smaller than they think it is.
How do you know?
I have been. I've been disagreeing with them, of course, but at no point did I somehow restrict them from sharing their opinion. Really, I'm not sure where you're coming from here.
Heh heh, nice try, but you're vaguing it up massively there and you know it. Come on, admit it, good or ill, removing the Vancian magic system is a BIG change, and inevitably big changes affect the feel of a game.I just had another thought:
Back in 3.x (and 2e), my wizards typically memorized several combat spells, and kept pearls of power to recharge those. I then left as many other slots as possible open, and flipped open a book to quickly memorize (and immediately cast) the appropriate utility spells only when I needed them.Boy that sounds a lot like encounter powers and rituals.
That actually is extremely similar to how rituals play out. The Wizard sits down with a book containing detailed arcane instructions on how to conduct a ritual, assembles the requisite materials and begins the process of incanting and developing the ritual (with or without the help of others in the party). It's pretty cool in practice, and I like that they have incorporated skill checks into the ritual process to add some variety.
That actually is extremely similar to how rituals play out.... It's pretty cool in practice, and I like that they have incorporated skill checks into the ritual process to add some variety.
Yeah, I do want to try those rules out and see how it goes. They look great on paper - with one exception. Somehow, a 10-minute casting time sounds like forever to me, so I think I'm going to houserule it down to 5 minutes. (Same end result, but it sounds a whole lot quicker.)
So far, my 4e experience has been limited to DM'ing a small group through a loose version of the old Dragonlance modules, and we've been keeping it pretty fast and straightforward in order to keep my friend's 11-year-old daughter front and center in the game.
She (and the rest of us) are having a great time with the new rules, but I haven't been able to try out many of the bells and whistles of the system in this game.
That actually is extremely similar to how rituals play out.... It's pretty cool in practice, and I like that they have incorporated skill checks into the ritual process to add some variety.Yeah, I do want to try those rules out and see how it goes. They look great on paper - with one exception. Somehow, a 10-minute casting time sounds like forever to me, so I think I'm going to houserule it down to 5 minutes. (Same end result, but it sounds a whole lot quicker.)
Doesn't sound like that'll change very much in the way of balance, so you should be okay there. As long as it takes too long to be feasible in combat.
|
I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.Maybe. The difference is only in that products for 3.5 will continue to be released. WotC didn't burn all your old 3.5 material when they changed editions. If a group wanted to stick with 3.5, they could easily stick with 3.5 regardless of Pathfinder's existence.
That is a difference. I think it's a major difference.I think it's a difference, but not a major difference.
I'd like to know how 4e is nearer in feel to 2e, than 3e was? Imo that's an absurd comment, and probably not one WotC would want to be true anyway.I have no idea, it's not me who has been saying it. Then again, I have difficulty understanding people who say that 4th Edition doesn't have the "feel" of D&D.
Honestly, I genuinely wonder if I'm in the majority or the minority:
1. I buy Pathfinder stuff because I like it.
2. At the moment, I don't buy D&D stuff because I don't really like 4E. Is it a bad game? Of course not, it's just not my bag baby
3. I hope that 4E is a rip-roaring success and for those that like it, I hope they have fun playing it for years and years to come.
4. I hope that Pathfinder is a rip-roaring success and for those that like it, I hope they have fun playing for years and years to come.
5. I hope that Runequest is a rip-roaring success.
6. I hope that Shadowrun is a rip-roaring success...
Blah, blah blah...you get the rest. We all have different tastes. Why do some individuals have to get bent out of shape about who plays which game? I don't get it [this is directed at no one in particular]. However, my brain is about the size of a peanut, so maybe there are issues I genuinely don't understand.
As a far as "will I eventually come around to someone else's point of view"...maybe, who knows, I've changed my mind on occasion. But sometimes I also make decisions, based strictly on my tastes, and my tastes don't change. Does that make me closed minded? Or a bad person? Or an old far so stuck in her ways...blah blah blah... I don't think so. At the end of the day, I'm not trying to take away anyone's fun.
I'm sorry, I really don't want to minimize anyone's feelings. But every time I see an "edition war" thread, my brain just starts bleeding. Can we stop? Can we stop belittling the "other side"?
I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.Maybe. The difference is only in that products for 3.5 will continue to be released. WotC didn't burn all your old 3.5 material when they changed editions. If a group wanted to stick with 3.5, they could easily stick with 3.5 regardless of Pathfinder's existence.
That is a difference. I think it's a major difference.I think it's a difference, but not a major difference.
I'd like to know how 4e is nearer in feel to 2e, than 3e was? Imo that's an absurd comment, and probably not one WotC would want to be true anyway.I have no idea, it's not me who has been saying it. Then again, I have difficulty understanding people who say that 4th Edition doesn't have the "feel" of D&D.Honestly, I genuinely wonder if I'm in the majority or the minority:
1. I buy Pathfinder stuff because I like it.
2. At the moment, I don't buy D&D stuff because I don't really like 4E. Is it a bad game? Of course not, it's just not my bag baby
3. I hope that 4E is a rip-roaring success and for those that like it, I hope they have fun playing it for years and years to come.
4. I hope that Pathfinder is a rip-roaring success and for those that like it, I hope they have fun playing for years and years to come.
5. I hope that Runequest is a rip-roaring success.
6. I hope that Shadowrun is a rip-roaring success...Blah, blah blah...you get the rest. We all have different tastes. Why do some individuals have to get bent out of shape about who plays which game? I don't get it [this is directed at no one in particular]. However, my brain is about the size of a peanut, so...
I agree 100%. Nothing in the gaming community is served by seeing good games die, and there's no doubt in my mind that both Pathfinder's products and Wizards' products are excellent. We should all be hoping for our hobby to expand, rather than watching it constantly keep itself in check like it's been doing for decades now.
I don't follow your meaning about Pathfinder rpg? My point was that, this edition change differs from previous ones (where it's true dissenters eventually caved due to not getting new product for their preferred older version of the game) because this time (unlike those other times) we have a choice - in Pathfinder, and other tpp OGL products.
*cough*Hackmaster*cough*
*cough*Castles and Crusades*cough*
Why? Why do you assume people who have already tried and decided against playing 4e are going to eventually change their minds?
Serious question, I don't think they will personally, why do you assume they will?
Because we've seen this before, multiple times. Not all of them will switch, but many will.
People are simply like this. Initially resistant to change (especially when the perception of a "resistance movement" exists) because of emotional or other investment in the old product. The flare of anger at the new product will die down, and at that point the resistance to the change will begin to disappear as well. This is the point where some of the former detractors will find themselves able to accept the new system.
I'd simply avoid bringing this up even if you happen to believe it on the basis that its just going to loose converts. Your simply hardening peoples conviction to 'never go 4E' with stuff like this. Its a lot easier for some one to decide to change their mind in the future if they have not sworn up and down that they will never ever change their mind. Why encourage them to do so? It has no benefits and simply looses potential converts.
|
I'd simply avoid bringing this up even if you happen to believe it on the basis that its just going to loose converts. Your simply hardening peoples conviction to 'never go 4E' with stuff like this. Its a lot easier for some one to decide to change their mind in the future if they have not sworn up and down that they will never ever change their mind. Why encourage them to do so? It has no benefits and simply looses potential converts.
Ditto.
The reason that I posted this thread in the first place was because I play from time to time in five different groups. Out of those five groups I would say we have approximately twenty players. Out of those twenty players we have ONE guy who has played 4.0. The first group which consists of six of us, I am the only one considering playing 4.0. All the other guys aren't going to switch mainly because they have been playing for 20-30 some odd years and are just sick of the edition changes. It has nothing to do with the new rules, they stated this before 4.0 even came out.
Group number two, my main group, has nothing against 4.0, we just love 3.5 and have no plans anytime soon of switching over, hell, now that the pfrpg is here, I can honestly say we wont switch over.
Group number three we have one guy who plays 4.0 while still playing 3.5. He loves it and even asked me to be in that group, but as you can see I have no time for another one.
I have an old rpg buddy who has played 4.0 and he likes the game. But he still prefers 3.5 and says 4.0 is enjoyable, but if he had to choose, which he doesn't, he will stick with 3.5.
Although this isn't a good representation of the entire role playing community it just got me thinking well if all these guys aren't going to switch over then I wonder how many people are. Of course there is no way to answer this accurately. I just wanted to get a general feel of what everyone thinks.
I have just started role playing again within the last three years so this is my first edition change that I have gone through.But I do think with Paizo coming out with an alternative to switching over to a brand new system that there will be fewer people switching over now then in the past with other edition changes.I think it makes a difference that a company is still putting out products for the game that you are currently playing, as opposed to before where there weren't. Make sense??
I strongly suspect that any company that has so large a part of it's previously (relatively) content and bidable customer base stating openly online they will no longer be buying any product from that company is in trouble.One or two hundred angry, extremely vocal posters out of an estimated 2 million does not even register on the richter scale.
By the way, a significant portion of the "I'm never buying anything from WotC again!" crowd won't follow through. The stinging pain they feel they've been dealt by having their hobby changed will wear off and they'll start realizing that they are actually capable of enjoying 4th Edition. Same thing happened with 3rd Edition and 3.5.
Yeah, many people came around to 3rd ed, many people grew to love it, but some stuck with their old 2nd ed books and are still using them to this day.
The reason most people came across was that there was no sensible alternative. Gamers who's Primary game is D'n'D are the roleplayers who are most likely to play only a single game, and at the time 3rd ed come out, there where few serious fantasy roleplaying games on the market. If what your interested in is killing creatures and taking there stuff, your probably not suddenly going to jump the DnD ship to go off and play Ars Magica or Pendragon.
But heres the thing, in the world of 2008, there are options, From massive library of existing wizards books, to 3.5 decendant games like true 20 and pathfinder. People don't have any pressure to come around this time. I doubt 3.5 is going to die any time soon.
And that not to mention that there is atleast one fairly serious alternative adventure(ish) type game on the market in the form of wfrp.
Why is it so hard to understand, there. is a sizable minority of players who will not be transfering across, and have no need to?
Past experience with edition changes (1e->2e, 2e-3e, 3e->3.5e) shows that after an initial period of vocal outrage, most people end up playing the new edition - while a smaller number do not.
Again, the conditions of this release are different to any other previous release. The old game is still being supported, which in the past was not the case.
of course, with this recent change, there's actually another company supporting the rules that some of the detractors want to stick to, so that might effect things down the line. Now, I'm not saying either is bad. 4e is a good system for those that like it, though admittedly it's not for me. I prefer 3rd/PFRPG. To me, it's like how I don't really play Hero System. It's a decent system, a good game, and people like it. But It's just not my thing.Just to point out there are/were other companies that supported the older systems when 3e was the official edition as well.
Not nearly on the same scale.
Past experience with edition changes (1e->2e, 2e-3e, 3e->3.5e) shows that after an initial period of vocal outrage, most people end up playing the new edition - while a smaller number do not.Again, the conditions of this release are different to any other previous release. The old game is still being supported, which in the past was not the case.
Absolutely right ... that's the main reason things are different, but arguably it's not the only one; for example there's the small (and more contentious) issue of the relative or perceived differences between 1/2e and 3e ... and 4e with everything that came before.
Perhaps people changed to 3rd eventually because a) they saw the changes didn't inherantly change the game into something else, and/or b) like myself were simply wooed by the sheer volume of fantastic quality modules, supplements, settings, etc etc pumped out by the many tpps all working aboard the OGL.
Simply saying, 'hey previous edition wars ended one way, so all edition wars will end the same way' doesn't necessarily make it so. Things are different this time imo.
The reason that I posted this thread in the first place was because I play from time to time in five different groups. Out of those five groups I would say we have approximately twenty players. Out of those twenty players we have ONE guy who has played 4.0. The first group which consists of six of us, I am the only one considering playing 4.0. All the other guys aren't going to switch mainly because they have been playing for 20-30 some odd years and are just sick of the edition changes. It has nothing to do with the new rules, they stated this before 4.0 even came out.
Group number two, my main group, has nothing against 4.0, we just love 3.5 and have no plans anytime soon of switching over, hell, now that the pfrpg is here, I can honestly say we wont switch over.
Group number three we have one guy who plays 4.0 while still playing 3.5. He loves it and even asked me to be in that group, but as you can see I have no time for another one.
I have an old rpg buddy who has played 4.0 and he likes the game. But he still prefers 3.5 and says 4.0 is enjoyable, but if he had to choose, which he doesn't, he will stick with 3.5.
Although this isn't a good representation of the entire role playing community it just got me thinking well if all these guys aren't going to switch over then I wonder how many people are. Of course there is no way to answer this accurately. I just wanted to get a general feel of what everyone thinks.
I have just started role playing again within the last three years so this is my first edition change that I have gone through.But I do think with Paizo coming out with an alternative to switching over to a brand new system that there will be fewer people switching over now then in the past with other edition changes.I think it makes a difference that a company is still putting out products for the game that you are currently playing, as opposed to before where there weren't. Make sense??
Interesting post eirip, your personal experience is if anything way too the extreme of a trend I have noted myself and many others have commented upon here and elsewhere; that many groups (usually seems to be about half - but that's just my impression of what I've seen) aren't switching and either have no interest in doing so, or actively refuse to do so.
Now as I say, your experience seems very extreme against 4e, and I'm sure many 4e folks will say it means nothing. Personally I think there is growing evidence that the movement away from switching isn't just a couple of hundred vocal loons on the web as we see in this very thread pro-4e people seem to be deluding themselves is the case.
Of course, it's all night and fog at the moment, but personally I suspect when honest, unbiased, seeming people like yourself (and I'd like to think myself) are having the experiences we are, seeming to back up a deal of what's being said online it isn't just coincidental and we happen to know freak diehard holdout groups, and there is a significant divide when it comes to 4e take up amongst D&D groups.
|
What I have discovered (talking amongst friends and friends of friends) is that if they have been playing 3.x for a while (say 2-3 years), it is unlikely that they are going to "switch over" entirely to 4e. But if they haven't been playing 3.x for a while (say less than a year), the switch is more likely.
Most of the reasons I heard were they have a significant financial investment and most of the 3.x games they were involved in aren't quite over yet, so they were in no rush to switch.
I think its too early to decide how 4e is doing. While I have no personal plans to switch over, it seems to have taken a hold amongst all of my little sisters friends. Somehow I can't see that as a bad thing.
I think its too early to decide how 4e is doing. While I have no personal plans to switch over, it seems to have taken a hold amongst all of my little sisters friends. Somehow I can't see that as a bad thing.
Oh no, I think that is a good thing. We need all the gamers we can get since we are a hobby that isn't main stream if you will. Whether that be with 4E, 3.5, or PFRPG. Excellent!
|
Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.
Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?
I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.
I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books. I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's. Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???
As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.
So how are the people on the WOTC message boards liking it?? I used to go on the boards here and there but since I discovered pathfinder and Paizo I spend all my internet time here.
That being said, despite my complaints, I do plan on playing 4.0. I just think it may get a little old after awhile. I am sure I will get bashed for complaining about a game without playing it but those are just my first impressions. Maybe I will change my mind when I do play, who knows, but I do know I am sticking with paizo from here on out.
Well, it seems to have sold well so far. It seems to be the game lots of people are buying but very few are actually playing. That is mostly from anecdotal info, but it is the general impression I have gotten so far. So, it may be doing good short term, but I don't know how good it looks for the long haul.
I'm enjoying 4th edition. Its hard for me to find players in the small town I live in sometimes, so I often go times with a very small group of no group at all. That being said, I budget a certain amount of time to work on D&D every now and then. TWith that said, I spend roughly the same amount of time preping and doing Dm things for 2 games in 4th edition as I did for one in 3.5. Becuase the edition is more stream lined I have been able to invite new and old gamers to my table and had them loving it(even one player who has refused to play D&D ever again. She had not played since 1st edition).
This brings me and my gaming groups joy. One group is about 20% Skill and Other challengers, 20% role-play (non skill based), and 60% combat. The other is more hack n' slash so is about 75% combat, 15 Percent skill challenges and 10 percent roleplay. So both groups have a unique dynamic and I see two very different characters emerging even from the one player who sits in both groups.
That being said, we've downloaded the PFRPG Beta for some light reading.
Well, my optimise for the longevity of 4e as a game has just taken something of a hit. I have just reseived the following email from my DM.
Dear All,
I`ve decided to call it a day on the D&D. I have completed the two scenarios as written and we have all had a chance to test the new edition. I feel that what i set out to achieve has been worthwhile and a fair chance to test things out has been given. It also gave us, or in theory tried to give us, a bit of light hearted breathing space after an intense vampire campaign.
In short, I dont enjoy using 4th edition at all and feel that it is intended as an introductory game for weaker roleplayers. Our group should not be using this. The current campaign is thus finished.
Should anyone else want to run something, then the field is open for them to do so.
The DM in question is amongst the best i have ever played in a game with. He will shortly be attending Gencon uk, where he will be running a game.
I am a little disappointed as i do fairly enjoy 4th ed, despite its weaknesses. I doubt i will be playing it again with my main group, which means the core book may as well go on a shelf.
Interestingly, Curse of the crimson throne as been put forwards as an alternative. I was to be playing in it on a different day, but i am fairly heartened by the idea of playing it with a stronger and larger group.
Well, my optimise for the longevity of 4e as a game has just taken something of a hit. I have just reseived the following email from my DM.
That's really a shame.
Sorry I disappeared for a while; took a plane ride and caught up on some sleep.
It is impossible to prove that most of the "dissenters" will eventually switch to 4th edition. I believe this to be the case because I've seen similar situations play out that way several times before. How else are we to learn but through observation and experience? However, it is true that inductive reasoning can never prove anything...at best, you can make a argument for something being likely.
Finally, there is a BIG difference between make generalizations about a population and making generalizations about an individual. I don't see how people get to "YOU will change your mind" or "YOU are a liar" from "I think the majority of people will do X." The two aren't the same. When discussing a group, or even a non-specific individual, valid conclusions based on group data can be inferred. Once you start talking about a specific individual, then they cannot, because a person either meets a given criteria or they do not; discussion of "chances" becomes as meaningless as discussing the chance an already flipped coin has landed on heads. There is no "chance" in such an instance; the result is set. Our inability to observe it is irrelevant. So, if there is value to be had in continuing this discussion, we must bear in in mind that no one is calling anyone else a liar.
My impressions of the 4th Edition are quite confusing...
On one side, i sincerely think the system was calling for a revamp, a broad review, to straighten things and uniform them.
On the other side, i think WotC went too far, cutting the bridges from previous editions and killing some sacred cows.
Although the game needed serious changes, it needed an evolution, not a revolution.
May main issue about the 4th edition is not in the system itself. Many new options are quite interesting and clever.
My issue is with the lack of compatibility.
Many DMs like me are running a campaign for many years now and they don't intend to drop it.
And many players like me have old characters they want to continue playing, accross the editions, like they did when they converted them from D&D2 to D&D3 (even if such conversions are not always easy).
From what i saw, such a conversion is nearly impossible now. The suggestions given by WotC on their website are even insulting for the characters and the players.
So it brings to an ultimate dilemna :
- Starting new campaigns and new characters in D&D4.
- Continuing current campaigns and characters with 3.5 or Pathfinder.
Frankly, i won't hesitate one second.
D&D4 is fine, but it's not for me as a DM for my campaign.
As a player, i am ok to play D&D4. A game is a game.
But while talking about this with all the players i know, i realized that none of them is interested into even trying D&D4.
So i guess i will put the 4th edition books on a shelf, until the day when another generation of players will eventually want to play it...
Well, my optimise for the longevity of 4e as a game has just taken something of a hit. I have just reseived the following email from my DM.That's really a shame.
Not really a great shame. while i enjoyed 4e, there are a great many games i prefer out there. All this means is i get to go from playing a game i enjoy to a game i prefer. Who knows....vampire the dark ages,? star wars? curse of the crimson throne? Hey, i might even get to run artesia: adventures in the known world.
I think it may be suffering from football bat syndrome. As my Grandad was wont to say; "I've never tried a s&$* sandwich, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it."
One thing I find interesting on these threads nowadays, as someone who will be firmly maintaining a 3.5 game, is how it seems (to me) like the people who get the most upset with comments like, "most people will eventually switch to 4e" are the people looking to switch to something else, PfRPG for example.
One thing I find interesting on these threads nowadays, as someone who will be firmly maintaining a 3.5 game, is how it seems (to me) like the people who get the most upset with comments like, "most people will eventually switch to 4e" are the people looking to switch to something else, PfRPG for example.
PfRPG is seen as many as just a continuation of what already exist.
One of the guys in my group works at Amazon, and he was telling us that 4E is one of the most returned books they've had. He didn't go into a lot of detail, but apparently, the majority of those who do return it are older players who buy it, unsure of what changes have been made between older editions and 4E, and are then disappointed in what they find. I'm not sure if they followed the progression from 2nd edition to 3E to 3.5, so I can't say which edition it has been compared to.
|
|
I picked up the 4E PHB, because I wanted to see what Wizards had actually done with the game. I'll admit, I went into it expecting to be disappointed, I hadn't heard a lot I liked about 4e on the net. Unfortunately, my expectations were realized. I can't even specifically tell you why I don't like 4e, except to say it "feels" completely wrong. It doesn't "feel" like D&D to me. At least when the game went from 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e, it still felt right. A couple rule changes, a few specifics altered, it was still D&D. This, to my mind, isn't D&D. I'm not sure what it is, but it's just not right. I wish I could be more specific on what's wrong with 4e, but I can't, it's just a wrong feel to the game.
Given that 3e is still being supported by multiple developers and writers, I have no great need to switch. So I'm going to stay with the system that feels like the game I started playing in 1980, and leave it at that.
Well, I also don't want to buy any more WoTC products period. I was deeply offended by the response I got to a complaint letter I sent to them over the Dragon and Dungeon cancellations. So, I'm actually relieved I don't care for 4e, it makes my decision to not buy from them easier to live with.
|
|
our 10th level FR conversion game went really well.
I designed an 8th level and 10th level encounter (which degenerated to a lesser encounter as one of the original mobs fled to warn the rest of his tribe).
next time we will tackle a 12th+ level encounter and see how they handle it/hang.
The near-paragon powers are pretty cool, very distinct and super-deadly.
I don't think that monster damage scales up as much as I would have liked though.
I picked up the 4E PHB, because I wanted to see what Wizards had actually done with the game. I'll admit, I went into it expecting to be disappointed, I hadn't heard a lot I liked about 4e on the net. Unfortunately, my expectations were realized. I can't even specifically tell you why I don't like 4e, except to say it "feels" completely wrong. It doesn't "feel" like D&D to me. At least when the game went from 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e, it still felt right. A couple rule changes, a few specifics altered, it was still D&D. This, to my mind, isn't D&D. I'm not sure what it is, but it's just not right. I wish I could be more specific on what's wrong with 4e, but I can't, it's just a wrong feel to the game.
Given that 3e is still being supported by multiple developers and writers, I have no great need to switch. So I'm going to stay with the system that feels like the game I started playing in 1980, and leave it at that.
Well, I also don't want to buy any more WoTC products period. I was deeply offended by the response I got to a complaint letter I sent to them over the Dragon and Dungeon cancellations. So, I'm actually relieved I don't care for 4e, it makes my decision to not buy from them easier to live with.
what did the responce letter say?