Aha, but I said we can all agree, not that we do. If any one who currently doesn't like 4e, as long as they truly liked RPGs (story, pretend, fantasy, immersion in another role, and all that), played a handful of sessions with me or a person with a similar perspective as me, we would all agree that 4e is best, of this I have no doubt (because I've seen it happen more than once before, with the most diehard of grognards*).
*said with admiration and respect
This isn't intended as an insult at all, so please don't take it as such. If you or your game uses minis, then I won't enjoy it more than what I play now. Period. It's draws way, way too much immersion away from the game for me, and that kills a lot of the emotional draw and appeal away from me.
This is just my view on things. My players are similar, but not identical. And, as someone who has spent the majority of their gaming time playing 3.X, let me say that we didn't use minis in that, either.
Which means, of course, if you didn't use minis or a grid, then you might be able to change my mind. I doubt you would, considering I don't play 3.X anymore either, but a game based on it (since I had problems with 3.X). However, it was still my favorite incarnation of the game, and it's possible it could change to 4e. But from my experience with the game, it won't.
Maybe if we're in the same area we can try sometime, though. And, of course, none of my subjective views on what makes a game enjoyable are meant to be seen as applying to the masses in general.
As always, play what you like
EDIT:
Redbadge said:
Well just to clarify my preferences: I prefer story and intrigue above dungeon delves. I do not like overt "gamism" and prefer that it either be absent or transparent. I prefer social and skill-based sessions much more than combat. The "powers" formatting and presentation is unfortunate for many, including me, but that's okay because we just imagine them as quicker and easier to cast rituals and martial practices, which we use profusely. I do not prefer miniatures or tabletop combat, so we rarely use that, but we have with particular set pieces. I am a roleplayer and storyteller first and foremost, but I do dabble in power-gaming and optimization because I like to test and explore the system. I write 30 page backstories for my characters, as do some of my players. When I DM, which is most of the time, I draw up elaborate plots and talk in funny voices. At the table, we spend most of the time planning, plotting, and roleplaying, and our combats are fast, colorful, and elaborate. Our games are realistic and simulate a fantasy setting really well, because that is what we prefer, but we could go in any other direction should we choose. I liked the earliest editions of D&D, loved 3e/3.5, and continue to be intrigued by Pathfinder (which I find to be based on 3.5, but inspired by 4e design). But 4e is mine.
I should have read this first, and I apologize for speaking too quickly. However, any presence of miniatures is a deal breaker for me. As are the funny voices. I know, I'm not tolerant of it, and that may be a fault in me as a gamer, but it will draw the immersion out of the game, even if the voice is closer to what you had imagined it being.
Also, there are other problems I have with D&D's recent style of gaming, but it's not like 3.X didn't have the same or even worse problems (the Christmas Tree effect can at least be somewhat muted with inherent bonuses in 4e, but a level 6 warrior being vastly superior to level 1's NPC guards in nearly every way [if not every way] has also always greatly bugged me). Also, I'm a fan of gritty, or at least vulnerability to the mundane, and 4e seems to have moved even further away from this than 3.X did.
At any rate, I'm not trying to talk down your skill as a DM. But, if we do meet in person, I'm going to be a challenge to convince. I won't say you can't do it, though. Maybe we'll see one day
