None of the above.

IV. People who like D&D (3e)  are quite well served by it, until they find something they like even better.

EDIT: nothing to see here

Quote from: LancerNone of the above.

IV. People who like D&D (3e)  are quite well served by it, until they find something they like even better.

Nope, that's II. And with that, I think I'm done discussing this issue with you, Lancer. You have interesting things to say on other topics, but any heat you get on this one is well-deserved.

Whatever you say, Elliot.
IV is exactly what happened to me (with 2ndEd/Basic D&D anyhow). And although I still enjoy both 2ndEd and Basic D&D, there are games I've since found that I enjoy even more. I can respect your stance but I don't appreciate your trying to undermine my own personal experiences.

and II is essentially very different from IV.

EDIT:We will just have to agree to disagree

Okay, a final word here from me (hopefully). I realize that the phrasing of II and IV are a bit different. II says the group is unhappy while IV says they're just not as happy as they could be. The essence is that they both claim every D&D group should and would switch to something else if only they knew. I disagree, even though I don't mean to deny your experience or (obviously) mine. A lot of people have started with D&D and then either switched as a group or formed new groups around different systems. But I don't believe many of them do so without being, at some level, consciously dissatisfied and seeking out something else on their own initiative. And on that theory, I don't think it's at all productive to tell people they need to try something else because of some deficiency they themselves don't perceive and which, ultimately, may not exist for them.

You speak as if a person's tastes remain rigid throughout their lifetime, Elliot.

Hell, even my tastes in women have evolved over the years.. And my career preferences..

So goes with the types of games one likes.

QuoteAnd on that theory, I don't think it's at all productive to tell people they need to try something else because of some deficiency they themselves don't perceive and which, ultimately, may not exist for them.

A group may not find something better than what they currently are playing. But it sure doesn't hurt to try out new things , if for nothing else, than to expand one's own horizons. Just what is the harm in that?
It's certainly not productive to tell people not to try out new games just because they are happy with their  present one. Who knows what awesome game they are missing out on just because of a reluctance to leave their comfort zone?
At least, that's what I believe.

Quote from: LancerNone of the above.

IV. People who like D&D (3e)  are quite well served by it, until they find something they like even better.

See, this is what they are trying to tell you. You aren't saying some people, or many people, or a few people. You are basically saying all people are only happy with DnD until they find other games. It's not only wrong, it's arrogant. Did you mean to say that? If not, then perhaps you should look more closely at how you choose to express yourself. If you did mean that then you need to get a clue. Dude, I've been playing RPGs since the late 70s, and found alternative games even back then.... even a fantasy one in Dragonquest, which I still like. Every single memeber of my gaming group has been playing since at least the late 80s, and all are familiar with a great many games. I would guess based on past discussion that a large percentage of the active posters here are similar in background. We know about other games, and have for a very long time. Some of us even prefer some of those other games, and some of us prefer, yes prefer, DnD. This isn't because we are stupid or braindamaged. It's because we like DnD. Why, because it doesn't suck, that's why. You can say it, scream it, whine about it, tattoo it to your ass, and it will still be bullshit to say DnD sucks. Try saying DnD is not a game you enjoy, or does not fulfill your requirements in a RPG, and you'll be golden.

In answer to the original question:

Because the game in question sucks?

Quote from: grubmanWe all know what thread prompted this one...

Actually, I don't. I was off for a few days, busy moving fridge and stuff (or more accurately, getting people to move fridge and stuff)

So anyone want to point me to the root of all this evil?

Quote from: David RWalker seems to think that folks who don't want to try new things are market controlled zombies. This is grade A Swine think right here. (Don't get me wrong, I think walker is an interesting poster, but on this subject, he's deluded)

It's not about the opinion Elliot, it's about the manner of expression. It's the difference between calling a game a piece of shit and saying the game just does not work for you.

Regards,
David R

I agree with you all the way. Admittedly, I'm a hotheaded prick myself half the time, and  nothing trips my trigger quicker than inferring I'm some kinda idiot swallowing some kinda bullshit marketing and that I would be so much happier if I let that person make the choice about whats best... what arrogance.

Sigmund! I am glad to see you on this thread taking up the 3e banner and fighting my evil forces of darkness.

Quote from: SigmundSee, this is what they are trying to tell you. You aren't saying some people, or many people, or a few people. You are basically saying all people are only happy with DnD until they find other games. It's not only wrong, it's arrogant. Did you mean to say that? If not, then perhaps you should look more closely at how you choose to express yourself.

In response, to my wording- To directly quote myself here:

Quote from:  LancerA group may not find something better than what they currently are playing. But it sure doesn't hurt to try out new things , if for nothing else, than to expand one's own horizons. Just what is the harm in that?

AND

Quote from: LancerPeople are happy with the games they play, or else they wouldn't be playing them. Whether or not there are other games they would like even more, if made aware of them, is a different story.

Now does that sound like someone arrogantly claiming that EVERYONE is happy with D&D until they find other games? I concede that some may still find 3e to be the best game ever, even after trying out other games.
I am many things, but Ron Edwards I am not.

QuoteTry saying DnD is not a game you enjoy, or does not fulfill your requirements in a RPG, and you'll be golden.

Depends on which iteration of D&D, man. I enjoy Basic D&D, 1e, and 2ndEd.
3.x is where my problems lie. I am not a WotC hater, though, and if 4e hits my fancy, I'd be glad to spend my hard-earned money on that.

EDIT: I have bought and read True 20 recently. It is a marked improvement over base 3e, IMHO.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe essence is that they both claim every D&D group should and would switch to something else if only they knew.

You are taking it to an extreme.  What I'm saying, at least, is that sentence above but modified to "The essence is that they both claim some D&D groups might switch to something else if only they knew."

Quote from: SigmundSee, this is what they are trying to tell you. You aren't saying some people, or many people, or a few people. You are basically saying all people are only happy with DnD until they find other games.

When did he say all people?

Why is there a trend of d20/DnD haters becoming internet martyrs, happy in the martyrdom brought on by their hatred?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe essence is that they both claim every D&D group should and would switch to something else if only they knew.

Shoot. I didn't even catch that little detail earlier. "EVERY GROUP?" That is a total no-no and it is not what I am saying at all.

Walker seems to be the only person on this thread that seems to understand what the heck I am saying.