Yet here is a site for 4E, and haters post hate. And doom and gloom. Why?
Because we want a good D&D. For now, quixotic tilting at windmills over changes that are already in the bag is all that's possible - I want to vent my frustration and incredulity over some of what's being done to our game. I don't care about 4E, but I do care about D&D - and D&D's fate rests on 4E. Sorry that annoys you, but stiff biccies.
And I'm not all anti, I like the sound of a lot of the changes. There's some real stinkers in there as well though, mainly to do with the flavour, and WOTC should really know better than to do this to the core - it's a mixed bag. 3E was as well - just look at the contents of the MM.
Like:
Magic item changes
Wand/staff/tome stuff
Simplified monsters & stat blocks
Per encounter abilities
Plane simplifications
Class roles
Less prep time
More fun combats
Streamlining like the devils/demons are humanoids/beasties divide
Don't like:
Crunch-logical, flavour-nonsensical stuff ending up in the core - e.g. "warlord"
Classes without archetypes
World-specific stuff ending up in the core - e.g. "eladrin"
Non-magical archetypes getting magical abilities - e.g. 3E's assassin, 1E's ranger, 4E's warlord by the sound of it
Poor names in the core
Hardcoding of world-specific flavour stuff like "cold + acid" into the crunch
The handwaving of healing in a way that seems mostly a crunch convenience, and suspension of disbelief can go hang
^: Disclaimer - a lot of that dislike list is just "what it's looking like". But that's all we've got to go on.
Note that my list of what I like is more solid than the dislike list, but 3E proves where WOTC's track record lies in recent years - they'll just go with a concept if the crunch behind it is cool, and I'm left going "Archetypes? Choice of name? Logic when magic's not involved? Suspension of disbelief? Modicum of respect for genre conventions when non-specific-worlds are involved? Bueller?" Mearl's rust monster sums it up for me: Rust "gets better" because it's crunchily convenient for it to do so, even though it doesn't make sense except by handwaving it away as magic.
This didn't bug me so long as it was supplemental - that's easily ignored. Eberron disappointed me because the Next Big Thing was going in a direction that I didn't like, and seemed so self-evidently self-defeating to me in many respects (not all - e.g. strictly limiting high level NPCs seems a solid move)...but now they've got their hands on D&D's core, so all bets are off.
The 3E team probably wanted to do to D&D what the 4E team are doing now, but they were apparently reined in by there being no guarantee that anyone would change, so stayed conservative. That may prove to have been a blessing in disguise that we might see reflected in a "back to classic D&D" backlash, come 5E. Or maybe we won't see a 5E, who knows?
Despite all this, I'm confident 4E will be a success. The IMO questionable stuff people were buying for 3E assures that. Most people aren't as anal with regard to suspension of disbelief as I am, and like their game more "wahoo". 4E looks like it'll be catering for that. I just don't see why they can't cater for both audiences by simply being more careful with the core, it's not an "either-or" situation.
Actually, scratch that, I do - the game's being sexied up in an attempt to appeal to a new audience, and incorporate trademarkable IP in the core, cross-marketing with the miniatures game with "warlords" etc. It's a gamble. Brings a lot of yuck into the IP with it though, IMO, and hurts D&D's ability to be a "Fantasy World Construction Kit", which was a core competency it had, and a core appeal.
If they manage to "unhardcore gamer" the audience, then that'll be a rabbit out of the hat alright, but I don't think that's going to happen, and that all these compromises will be in vain. D&D's hobby-within-the-hobby is worldbuilding and (to a much lesser extent) adventure prep, just like Games Workshop's is miniature painting and converting. You've cut away most of the mainstream right there.
