Add another to the "Dragonblade spoke for me" contingent. I'll expand further, though.
I whined and cajoled until the group switched from 2e to 3e, during that era. I was playing an alt-mage (exhaustion rules or some such) and was eager to convert to a sorcerer. 3e also read absolutely awesome. When I started playing 3e, it still felt like D&D, but after five or so years, it really didn't. The simplicity was gone. I could build a high-level, non-wizard PC in 1e in 15 minutes and whip out NPCs on the fly. I never did learn to do that with 3e. It was too complex and just too vast. What wasn't obvious, when 3e came out, was how important feats were going to be, not to mention the magic items and harsh balance. It really just played different, IMO. By the end, if not earlier, it was as far removed from 1e (the standard by which I measure "D&D") as 4e is. It simply diverged in a different way.
I really liked 4e, initially. Part of that, I'm sure, was that I wanted anything but 3e/3.5e, which I can't imagine ever DMing again. But, I think 4e has some great elements, on its own. I like the new defenses and the new skills rules, which are more granular than the 2e NWP, but not as wild as 3e skills.
That said, there are aspects I don't much care for. Dragonborn have rather grown on me, but they're about the only new race that has -- most of them would be best left as a note in the back of a Monster Manual. I don't like the "creature cantina" racial salad. I don't care for the de-humanoidization of angels, fae, and probably some other classic monsters. Most of those are minor, though, and easily reflavored.
I'm finding that the power cards aren't quite as cool as I thought they'd be. They don't suck, but there are some issues. The magic items pretty much do suck and the rituals are too costly -- and bland. There isn't enough variation in the power sources for my taste, either. I'd prefer to see each with differing rules, at least as unique as psionics looks to be.
I still haven't gotten the hang of "instant foes", but that's probably a skill I just need to practice. Once I can turn out human(ish) foes of any level, and do it off-the-cuff, I'll be pretty happy with it. Surprisingly, I'm finding I like the new "pre-baked" Monster Manuals because of this. I just wish there was more flavor to the entries because I honestly have no idea what to tell the players about some of the critters.
Finally, I'm growing fairly concerned that the expanding lists of powers is going to end up doing to 4e what feats did to 3e. You want to be able to do something? No problem. There's a power for that. Just pick from this list of 1,000. Blech. I know I don't have to buy the books, and I'm not. But, I still get an uneasy feeling about it.
Is 4e D&D? I don't know. It's not the game Gary created but I don't think 3e was, either. If 3e is D&D, then 4e is a contender for that title, too. It just depends on what you consider the key bits of D&D. I loathe "Vancian", quantum casters, and generally house-ruled something to remedy that (in 3e, I used the UA point system), so that loss doesn't bother me. I'm actually much more put off by both the loss of the humanocentrism and the general expectation that the PCs will end up with stats above 18 -- or start with them. A single 20 seems remarkable, and multiple stats at that level still feels Monte Haul. If you played 1e differently, though, you're going to have a different definition and feeling.
As far as having to try the game before passing judgement, I can see both sides. Personally, I think the rules really do read significantly different than they play. That's probably a failing on the part of the writers, just like the horrible modules and flavorless monsters.
But, I have yet to see "good anime" and want to punch people when they insist I watch just one more flick. Sometimes, you can see an inherent "flaw" without steeping in the subject matter for too long. There are also some systems that just don't work for certain people -- I'll stop gaming before I ever play GURPS again. But, enough people love that system that I can't really blame someone for disliking 4e D&D, even if I don't totally agree with their reasons.
In short, I like where 4e went, compared to 3e. I think it represents more of a branch of D&D running parellel to 3e than a decendent of 3e. I do think 4e could use another iteration, though, to really hammer out some of the concepts. I hope that, when 5e does show, I can look at that in the same light a lot of people look at Pathfinder as hammering out some of the kinks of 3e.
)
