Mercurius
Legend
An idea came to me while reading the Thread of the Week and was inspired further by some of AbdulAlhazred's comments in this thread, about his experiences of being a grognard that likes 4E, and more than previous editions of D&D, including the hallowed AD&D 1E.
It is very simply this: My sense is that a lot, even most, of the dislike of 4E--and I'm not talking about indifference but actual dislike--comes not from old-time players, that is folks who started playing D&D before 3E arrived in 2000, but from those that started with 3E and "grew up" with it, so to speak, at least as D&D players. Sure, there are some Old Schoolers that prefer OD&D or Labyrinth Lord or AD&D, but they probably felt that way before and during 3E. In other words, to the Old Schooler it isn't 4E specifically that is the problem, but anything after, say, Dragonlance or Gary Gygax left TSR, or wherever an individual might draw the line. But of those who have outright rejected 4E, even felt betrayed by WotC for publishing it, I think the vast majority are players that were new to D&D with 3E.
This is just a hypothesis, mind you, but let me explain my reasoning. A common view (and I would say an ultimately fallacious one) is that D&D's biggest jump was between 3E and 4E. I would say that it was between 2E and 3E; with 3E, D&D in a sense "modernized" and became a very different game from 2E. Not only did it catch up with the rest of the RPG world in terms of having a streamlined game and engine based upon a unified core mechanic--an approach that went back at least to the late 80s with Ars Magica and was popularized by Vampire: the Masquerade--but a shift in game style and approach. Because of the simplicity and strength of the core mechanic, the 3E system could hold much more "weight" than 2E, and so its designers--and later supplements--piled on option after option, exception after exception, and 3E became by far the most simulationist iteration of D&D ever made. There was a rule to handle anything, an option to create any character concept you wanted, down to the nitty-gritty details.
4E changed that. It went back to its gamist roots and said, "We don't need to know every little detail about every monster, we can just wing it." Of course it followed a similar (and unfortunate, imo) pattern of weighing the game down with endless options (which has made creating a character in Character Builder increasingly tedious - the feat menu, for instance, is a nightmare) but it has also advocated a more free-wheeling, improvisational style, partially by sacrificing game mastery for playability and balance.
In addition to a re-focus on gamism vs. simulationism, the designers at WotC integrated more contemporary elements, many of them based upon what could loosely be described as the "World of Warcraft Mythos." Not necessarily specific Warcraftisms, but Warcraft-like elements. But what many seemed to miss is that the default approach to 4E was as a toolbox: everything is core, everything customizable. Campaign settings are not heavily detailed because you, the DM, decide the details and set the tone. Don't like dragonborn, tieflings, and shardminds? Fine, don't include them in your campaign. This has always been true, but 4E re-emphasized this (although evidently not enough).
So back to my main point: It is my view--more of a hypothesis than a theory--that most of those who have reacted negatively to 4E are people who were new to D&D with 3E; in other words, it is the contrast and difference between 3E and 4E that people are (for the most part) not liking, not the contrast and difference between older editions and 4E.
What do you think?
p.s. This is not to say that anyone is right or wrong; I certainly feel that both 3E and 4E are valid approaches and versions of D&D; however I do think that people who come from 3E roots and say that 4E "isn't real D&D" are missing the larger tradition of D&D, because in some ways 4E is even more connected to earlier editions than 3E was; but my point is, that the feeling that "4E isn't real D&D" is less so from long-time players than it is from people who grew up on 3E; in other words, what said folks are really saying is that "4E isn't 3E," no more or less. Which is, of course, a truism.
It is very simply this: My sense is that a lot, even most, of the dislike of 4E--and I'm not talking about indifference but actual dislike--comes not from old-time players, that is folks who started playing D&D before 3E arrived in 2000, but from those that started with 3E and "grew up" with it, so to speak, at least as D&D players. Sure, there are some Old Schoolers that prefer OD&D or Labyrinth Lord or AD&D, but they probably felt that way before and during 3E. In other words, to the Old Schooler it isn't 4E specifically that is the problem, but anything after, say, Dragonlance or Gary Gygax left TSR, or wherever an individual might draw the line. But of those who have outright rejected 4E, even felt betrayed by WotC for publishing it, I think the vast majority are players that were new to D&D with 3E.
This is just a hypothesis, mind you, but let me explain my reasoning. A common view (and I would say an ultimately fallacious one) is that D&D's biggest jump was between 3E and 4E. I would say that it was between 2E and 3E; with 3E, D&D in a sense "modernized" and became a very different game from 2E. Not only did it catch up with the rest of the RPG world in terms of having a streamlined game and engine based upon a unified core mechanic--an approach that went back at least to the late 80s with Ars Magica and was popularized by Vampire: the Masquerade--but a shift in game style and approach. Because of the simplicity and strength of the core mechanic, the 3E system could hold much more "weight" than 2E, and so its designers--and later supplements--piled on option after option, exception after exception, and 3E became by far the most simulationist iteration of D&D ever made. There was a rule to handle anything, an option to create any character concept you wanted, down to the nitty-gritty details.
4E changed that. It went back to its gamist roots and said, "We don't need to know every little detail about every monster, we can just wing it." Of course it followed a similar (and unfortunate, imo) pattern of weighing the game down with endless options (which has made creating a character in Character Builder increasingly tedious - the feat menu, for instance, is a nightmare) but it has also advocated a more free-wheeling, improvisational style, partially by sacrificing game mastery for playability and balance.
In addition to a re-focus on gamism vs. simulationism, the designers at WotC integrated more contemporary elements, many of them based upon what could loosely be described as the "World of Warcraft Mythos." Not necessarily specific Warcraftisms, but Warcraft-like elements. But what many seemed to miss is that the default approach to 4E was as a toolbox: everything is core, everything customizable. Campaign settings are not heavily detailed because you, the DM, decide the details and set the tone. Don't like dragonborn, tieflings, and shardminds? Fine, don't include them in your campaign. This has always been true, but 4E re-emphasized this (although evidently not enough).
So back to my main point: It is my view--more of a hypothesis than a theory--that most of those who have reacted negatively to 4E are people who were new to D&D with 3E; in other words, it is the contrast and difference between 3E and 4E that people are (for the most part) not liking, not the contrast and difference between older editions and 4E.
What do you think?
p.s. This is not to say that anyone is right or wrong; I certainly feel that both 3E and 4E are valid approaches and versions of D&D; however I do think that people who come from 3E roots and say that 4E "isn't real D&D" are missing the larger tradition of D&D, because in some ways 4E is even more connected to earlier editions than 3E was; but my point is, that the feeling that "4E isn't real D&D" is less so from long-time players than it is from people who grew up on 3E; in other words, what said folks are really saying is that "4E isn't 3E," no more or less. Which is, of course, a truism.
Me for example. 
