The more I hear how others are disappointed by their expectations, the gladder I am that I have a talent for appreciating the unexpected. The mixed reaction to 4e really drove home for me how variable peoples' tolerance for change is, and how exceptional I am for being relatively accepting of it.
You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas in a vast sea of
meh. The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition. But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build". It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game. Is like a chess game without clocks or TEG (the argentinian version of ¿Risk, I think?) without time limits. I'll enumerate what things I disliked the most and why:
1)
Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game: Power creeps and superheroic feeling. It's a game perfectly designed for munchkins, whom care for no other than reduce foes to 0 hp to "level up". It has a explicit metagaming factor so crucial that make thinking outside the box clearly NOT an option. You have
three dump stats. Why bother in Charisma or Intelligence if you are a fighter? Your stats MUST be Constitution, Strenght, and maybe Wisdom or Dexterity (you chose whom, the other to the trash can). If you chose Charisma as your second stat, you are clearly playing wrong. This factor was present in 3e too, and that was one of the factors I didn't like from it, but at least permitted certain openness to the unexpected. 2e had this factor too, but clearly not so present, as it was messy and ery prone to improvisation. So "revolutionary" my balls. Munchkins are older than dirt in D&D, but this game actively
encourages them.
2)
Dissociated mechanics: Linked to the above, the dissociated mechanics are idiotic. No, maybe not idiotic, but in the better scenario, they are the lesser evil (hp, for example). There are tons of articles explaining this (Justin Alexander is one of those). You will expect a certain amount of it, because at a certain point they are inevitable, but 4th ed was a game actually
made of dissociated mechanics.
3)
Straight-jacketed party roles: You expect certain amounts of party roles, but at least give them certain fluidity. A fighter can be a leader; the party negotiator; the defender; the tactician; the lightining bruiser; or the skinny, apparently frail dude that uses a bow to knock down knights in charge with the speed of light. But no... not even the "mighty glacier". Not even the "Lightning Bruiser". You are a tank (not a real, fast, heavy artillery from real life, but the party role from LoL). A slow meatshield. Boring.
4)
Exponential power grow:
Fading Suns was going at the time on other direction. And maybe Withewolf. Here? Still HP, but only more. At 9th level, you cannot fight anymore with orcs, because you destroy them in a blink (if you can manage through the speed combat with ease). The only way to make them a little effective is to label them "minions" and throw them in masse, guided by some dragon or such. That was the case too of AD&D and D&D 3.5. I never played OD&D, but i
bet that this was present too. So a flaw present on previous editions, only made worse. This is "unexpected"? Only if you seriously think that people will change. I will have appreciated a flatter scalade of power, were an army of orcs actually presents a serious threat to a party by the sheer numbers, but a party can take marauders with relative ease. But here? Being stabbed does not kill you. Not even to a 1º level mage. Of course, you are a superhero, but... you can't be Superman or Thor, because they are fighters both strong and durable. You have to choose one of the two variables.
5)
Inverosimilitude: All the previous point redund at this. Dissociated mechanics put arbitrary limits to common sense. Munchkins are so powerful that is difficult to see why they don't rule the campaign worlds. Power grow mades many of the fundations of the fictional universe muddy and non believable. You aren't prone to actually believe that you are in a fantasy world, and take in-game sensitive choices: you only "exploit" your metagaming skills as a player, not your character's strengths.
As you see, my objections are mostly historical. All previous editions have already show this problems. But I liked AD&D, (I prefered Fading Suns nonetheless when I was playing both) although when played it I have to house rule a lot; I can stand 3rd, until a certain point (it certainly creeps me out how to make a fighter/sorcerer/barbarian/druid from a roleplaying standpoint and not over a metagaming point). I love 5ed (because most of this flaws are polished, or thoroughly corrected).
4ed an improve? An "Advance"? No, it is a stepback to Chainmail. At best, is a polished Chainmail, but for that kind of game, I actually prefer play TEG or Warhammer. Or Age of Empires.
Yet I not want to attack those whom enjoy it. I'm only "reacting" to a condescendant prick that thinks "my thing is better. Period. Everything else is just naked indians screaming over the deforestation. Even the new indians like 5ed"
