As Henry pointed out, I wasn't saying that the older editions weren't fun (obviously, they were), just that they were poorly designed out of the box to deliver that fun, as shown by the near-nessecesity of house rules (which is shown by evidence drawn mostly from these boards -- Gary Gygax himself did not play with the rules out of the box). They relied instead upon the people putting them together inventing fun themselves. Like turning a cardboard box into a toy, it's something that can be a lot of fun and very rewarding, but a cardboard box is a poorly designed toy.
As far as the soul of the game is concerned, it seems that most consider it broad enough to apply in the new edition, too. The new edition is D&D, just different D&D. Those who don't seem to usually cite the mechanical changes or the DM/Player relationship change. The former seems to be a debate against quality of the mechanics -- those who see the new rules as horrible for whatever reason cite the new edition as entirely different, while those who see the new rules as on the whole better suited to gameplay are more ready to adapt a D&D with a different "skeleton." Similarly, those who have no knowledge of the "plays with friends" kind of mentality that 3e supports seem to prefer the older language when dealing with a DM's authority, marking the change in editions as a distancing from their norms. Those who don't want their friends leaving the room because they aren't having fun instead prefer the dynamic of players knowing what makes a good game and what doesn't.
It seems that those who hate 3e the most have had VERY GOOD experiences with older editions, and incomprable experiences with the new one. These people seem to be in the minority -- most people's play experiences with older editions may have been fun, but in the new edition they are more fun and less work.
And since the quality of older editions was largely dependant upon how good of a DM you happened to land (because the rules themselves were unreliable), it seems that it may be slightly more than simple nostalgia (though certainly that may play a role). Apparently, the "soul of the game" is in the DM and the playing group -- get a good one, and it's all fun. Have a bad one, and it's all bad.
3e, then, wants to create a baseline "good body," something that can be relied on as a set of fundamental assumptions, a moral code and guideline for the game that leads to the most people having the most fun. But, of course, a bad DM or bad players can still ruin it (by doing the same thing they always have, mucking with things that work), and a good DM can still make it amazing (largely by doing the same thing as a bad DM). Only now, positive experiences are easy to get out of mediocre DM's and casual gaming groups due to the base mechanics and assumptions of the game.
3e is a good body. Even inhabited by a moderate soul, it can accomplish great things. Moderate souls just tended to play games other than D&D in the days of older editions. And today, moderate souls are doing things like playing videogames. And moderate souls are those the game must persuade to come to it in order to survive and grow.
Though I'm probably getting muddled in metaphor, here.
To open a new can of worms: do the strict formulas, CR system, WBL system etc. give off a distinct "video game" vibe to anyone else, or is it just me?
....
By "viedo game feel" I mean that CR and WBL sets up an atmosphere of "you cannot confront the end of level boss until you have the red key and the BFG9000".
I don't think so, because the EL guidelines basically state "The end of level boss should come by every once in a while and beat the crap out of you basically for fun, and sometimes you'll be facing your weakest foes after the tough ones have been run away from."
I do think that there is a
baseline assumption of power keyed into the system, but this is true in any RPG system. In 3e, at least, the stipulation is that it is there so you can accurately guage your diversion, not to adhere to it like a doctrine.
