It’s not that people are saying, “4th edition rules were not to my taste, for these reasons, and so I avoid that edition.” It’s not that people are saying, “4th edition was unsuccessful for these reasons.”
It’s the attitude that people are gleeful that 4e failed, and that some are trying to argue that no one should play this edition.
It’s the blog post that came out right as 4e was initially released, entitled, “Fourth Edition is out, and it’s awful.”
It’s the video I watched recently, where the person says, “I’ve never played 4e, because I’ve heard horrible things about it.”
It’s Bardic Broadcasts (the “Heroquest is great”guy), when discussing the artwork in various editions, skips 4e, saying, “4the edition is non-canonical, and shall not be discussed here!” Ha! Ha! Ha! He’s so edgy!
It’s the poster on another ttrpg forum, displaying pictures of himself dousing his 4e books in lighter fluid and setting them on fire, once 5e was published (or when it was announced, maybe). I was so astonished that the only thing I could think to say was, “Jack Chick approves.”
There is a visceral hatred of Fourth Edition that I have not observed with other editions.
Which would be fine, except, as I mentioned, it sometimes bleeds over into trying to steer people away from it, without regard to whether someone might like 4e’s style of play.
People have mentioned the disrupts* when 2e and 3e were published, but I view the situation as similar to the division between “Basic” and “Advanced” D&D. The attitude of superiority that was seemingly held by those who played the latter. “Oh, you still play that kid’s game?” It isn’t seen very much these days, except it is sometimes brought up for humor.
Moldvay/Mentzer D&D has, in the past few years, finally been recognized for the great games that they are.
I expect the same will happen for 4e in the future.
*edit: “disrupts”? I have no idea what I was originally typing, here, so I will leave it
