Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

4E: Create a new game based roughly on the exception-based design of Magic: The Gathering. Remove almost all the legacy clunk in an attempt to make things balanced and fun from a gameplay standpoint (although critically, not from a flavour or suspension of disbelief standpoint, IMO). Try and get the game online. Try and sell miniatures. Try and be hip and different enough flavourwise draw some of the WoW and Harry Potter crowd. Ignore generic pulp fantasy simulation to a degree, but do an ourobouros so that D&D eats it's own tail with an identifiable specific and trademarkable IP in the core and is difficult to relate to anything but itself (a direction started out in OD&D with things like the cleric, but arguably fetishised with Praemal, Eberron, and 4E. Hello dragonborn, hello warlord, hello eladrin). Overhaul flavour so that it's more fun from a metagame standpoint, is compromised by crunch or handwaved when the two conflict, and has a specific, identifiable IP which can no longer do classic pulp fantasy without banning core races and at least one class. All splat becomes core to sell more books.

I suspect 4E is much influenced by M:tG, WoW and GW. M:tG for the exception-based design, random collectables and M:tG Online. WoW and GW for the identifiable IP (Dragonborn vs taurens? Eladrin vs eldar?). GW for firing the customer base periodically - after all, grognards already own an army, so they're of no more use to the company unless those minis are rendered obsolete. I suspect that might have given WOTC the "who cares about retention" direction that 4E has in not tipping it's cap to D&D flavour continuity in the same way that 3E did.

With all respect, some of these 4E design goals don't hold water with my experiences.

Magic the Gathering: As a player of MTG, I see little to no influence on DnD from Magic. Can you supply some examples? Magic (since 6th edition) game-play is based on a stack concept (First in last out (the first card cast is the last card to be resolved)) and alternating turns divided into phases (untap, upkeep, draw, main phase, attack phase, second main phase, clean up). DnD has had alternating turns since I started playing it in 1997 using initiative to determine who acts first each round.

DnD Miniatures: These are a purely optional item. You can run DnD just fine with a battle mat and a few tokens, just like 3.X, 3.0, 2nd, and 1st. The miniatures are an extra that you may elect to purchase or you may elect to pass on depending on the value you feel they add to your game. Furthermore, there are plenty of non-random DnD minis you can purchase if you dislike the random model (I loath the random mini booster pack). For example reaper now has a pre-painted non-random minis for sell in their Legend product line

DnD On-line: I hate to say it, but your currently discussing DnD on-line . D&DI is not out yet, so I will not pass judgment on it. However, it is another optional item. If you don't want to join or pay for it, do not (I will not be paying $15 a month for the service, especially since there are free sources that can do the same thing - RP Tools for example is an java application that is a virtual table-top and chat program. Combine with Ventrilo and you've got your remote DnD game ready to go. 4E functions fine without D&DI, just as many 3rd edition games were played on-line and functioned fine without it.

WoW: Tauren is better described as a Minotaur (bull/man hybrid) in their physical appearance and Native American in their cultural.

Customer Service Retention: Quite possibly the strangest point in your discussion, at least in relation to my own games. I've never had a need to call customer service for DnD. The idea is completely alien to me. Once the DM says yeah or nay, the issue is resolve. If the Customer Service department for DnD were all turned into fuzzy sheep there would be zero impact on the DnD games I play.

 

[joethelawyer]

My take on the editions is probably a little skewed by my experiences with them, but here goes:

I skipped AD&D 1e. Never played it. But from what I can see, it's OD&D plus supplements, just codified and streamlined by Gygax. Which means that it's crunchy and tactical. The complex combat system just doesn't work like it's supposed to if you don't use all the tables for weapon speed, weapon types vs. armor, initiative segments, etc. And I wouldn't want to try and play this edition without minis and a grid; it'd be a nightmare.

nah. it wasnt like that for me or my friends. i liked the weapon speed, but we didnt use the weapon types v armor thing. and we never even consuidered minis or a grid.

not needed

typical example: dm: "ok, .aragorn the ranger, 2 orcs are near you this round. what are you gonna do?"

gandolf the wizard asks dm "how many can i blast with a fireball? i want to kill as many as i can without hitting the rest of the group." dm figures out an arbitrary number, based on how the combat is going for the group, and how he wants it to go, and announces "5."

ranger declares "ok, i want to swing at one of them, then jump out of the way before the wizard gets off the fireball so that he can toast more of them"

dm says "dex check with a -5 penalty, wizard will still cast it, good luck getting out of the range of it."

in 3e, that would have been the cleave feat for the double attack, assuming he killed the orc in one shot, or the spring attack thing for getting out of the way, or using some sort of measurement system on a piece of gridded paper to figure out exactly where everyone is for the wizard spell, taking up time, plus attack or opportunity against the ranger for ducking out of the way, not counting the dealing with the potential flanking situation with the two orcs, and especially if one is a rogue. what a pain in the arse. not to mention there would have likely bveen only one attack per character per round, not multiple attacks, the latter of which probably would not have hit due to the penalties.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

AD&D
When I played at AD&D back in the early to mid 80s as I moved into my teens, we played AD&D by the proverbial style of "kill things and take their stuff". But, looking back at the rules, I don't think that's the way AD&D was written. Looking at the abilities of characters, the way that experience points are awarded, and the looseness of the system, I think that we had gotten it backwards.

Take things' stuff and then kill them? Well that just seems downright gratuitous.

 

[Hussar]

nah. it wasnt like that for me or my friends. i liked the weapon speed, but we didnt use the weapon types v armor thing. and we never even consuidered minis or a grid.

not needed

typical example: dm: "ok, .aragorn the ranger, 2 orcs are near you this round. what are you gonna do?"

gandolf the wizard asks dm "how many can i blast with a fireball? i want to kill as many as i can without hitting the rest of the group." dm figures out an arbitrary number, based on how the combat is going for the group, and how he wants it to go, and announces "5."

ranger declares "ok, i want to swing at one of them, then jump out of the way before the wizard gets off the fireball so that he can toast more of them"

dm says "dex check with a -5 penalty, wizard will still cast it, good luck getting out of the range of it."

in 3e, that would have been the cleave feat for the double attack, assuming he killed the orc in one shot, or the spring attack thing for getting out of the way, or using some sort of measurement system on a piece of gridded paper to figure out exactly where everyone is for the wizard spell, taking up time, plus attack or opportunity against the ranger for ducking out of the way, not counting the dealing with the potential flanking situation with the two orcs, and especially if one is a rogue. what a pain in the arse. not to mention there would have likely bveen only one attack per character per round, not multiple attacks, the latter of which probably would not have hit due to the penalties.

You have to remember that some people came to D&D from tabletop wargames. Using minis, string, protractors and the like were not unheard of back then. And the rules do support this kind of thing as well.

My take on 3e and then 4e, because I generally agree with what people have said about 1e and 2e. 3e was designed by looking at what happens at the table. They zeroed in on what most people do at their table and then crafted the rules to handle that action.

4e has taken this a few steps further. 3e retained a number of legacy issues that IMO are problematic at the table. For me, the number one example is the Paladin's Mount ability in 3e.

Now, I like the idea of the Paladin's mount. Liked it so much in earlier editions that I played paladins very often. I like the idea of the holy knight being given a loyal steed by the powers that be.

But, there's a problem with it. For the vast majority of adventures out there, a horse is useless. Unless you happen to be having an adventure in fairly open terrain outdoors, you can't use your mount. No city adventures, no dungeons. ((By and large)) So, here we have this signature ability, a fairly powerful one at that - something you get at 5th level is a pretty big deal - that is pretty much useless for large stretches at a time. 3e went some way towards fixing this by making the mount summonable, but, that doesn't change the basic problem - most adventures make the use of mounts very difficult.

4e has looked at this and chucked it. No more mount. Why? Because it's too problematic. It's a very cold view of D&D - anything that gets in the way of what happens at most tables gets the axe. And I think that's what's set off so many people. The planes being rearranged, new rules, even the roles are based off the idea that certain things are most likely going to happen at the table, so, we'll design a game for that.

I posted a thread a while ago about how a lot of the changes weren't big changes for me. And they're not really. My group has been using lots of late era 3.5 material, so, it's not like these changes are going to have massive impacts on my game. But, I can certainly see why some people would be left very cold by these changes. They do presume an awful lot about what happens around the table.

 

[Remathilis]

With all respect, some of these 4E design goals don't hold water with my experiences.

Magic the Gathering: As a player of MTG, I see little to no influence on DnD from Magic. Can you supply some examples? Magic (since 6th edition) game-play is based on a stack concept (First in last out (the first card cast is the last card to be resolved)) and alternating turns divided into phases (untap, upkeep, draw, main phase, attack phase, second main phase, clean up). DnD has had alternating turns since I started playing it in 1997 using initiative to determine who acts first each round.

While truthfully, 4e borrows "lightly" from M:TG, it does share some similar mechanical expressions, particularly in the exact area of round-resolution. Players have a Start of turn (which resolves ongoing effects, similar to upkeep), Actions in turn (main phase/attack) and End of Turn (cleanup) as well as interrupt/instant actions. While other editions of D&D have had similar elements, the format from 4e immediately reminded me of M:TG's round setup.

Similarly, I found game runs much smoother if (and WotC will gladly sell you) you use power cards to track your powers, which gives the game a sorta-card game feel. Clearly, they are optional. However, WotC seems to be nudging players in that general direction.

 

[Mister Doug]

Take things' stuff and then kill them? Well that just seems downright gratuitous.

First rule of mercenary life: make sure you get paid first, before you have to start risking your life.

 

[Hussar]

Remalthalis - I think it's the interrupt and instant actions that have borrowed the most heavily from MtG. I can't really think of any instance of D&D which previously had that. Turns were very distinct pre-4e. You couldn't do pretty much anything on someone else's turn barring some very, very specific actions like Ready in 3e. I suppose AOO's count here, but, those are triggered by the target, not by someone else out of turn.

The idea that you can interrupt someone else's turn is definitely a borrowing from MtG.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

All this and I still can't decide which edition to play.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Remalthalis - I think it's the interrupt and instant actions that have borrowed the most heavily from MtG. I can't really think of any instance of D&D which previously had that. Turns were very distinct pre-4e. You couldn't do pretty much anything on someone else's turn barring some very, very specific actions like Ready in 3e. I suppose AOO's count here, but, those are triggered by the target, not by someone else out of turn.

The idea that you can interrupt someone else's turn is definitely a borrowing from MtG.

Just a note, I know the WoW d20 had instant and interrupt actions as of their Magic and Mayhem book, as I have learned to my great delight in a current game, allowing my shaman to cast one of his spells to inturrupt any enemy spellcaster. Good lord, it's unfair.

 

[Hussar]

I'm fairly neutral on it taste wise. I can see it as a good idea. The whole counter-spell system in 3e just didn't work for me. Forego an action to maybe stop someone from casting a spell was always a sub-optimal choice. Much, much things to do, even if it's a simple "ready a magic missile if he casts anything".

Using interupts means that you can actually have a workable spell/counterspell system.

Now, if we could just see that system in 4e.