ppaladin123
Adventurer
I've been reading the various threads on this board for months and have noticed that there are not simply two "sides" to the debate over the merits of 4e. The belief that there are has led to some confusing arguments where the posters essentially talk past each other. Below is a quick typology of positions I've seen forwarded so far. I'm posting this in the hopes of decreasing fruitless debate. Feel free to add to the typology if I've overlooked any positions.
1. "Not far enough!" Disappointed with 4e, dislike 3e. These folks have problems with 3e that have convinced them to give up on it. They were hoping that 4e would correct those problems but have so far been underwhelmed by the changes revealed. Arguing against them that "3e is the same!" is pointless because they agree; that's the problem.
2. "The Grognard I" Disappointed with 4e, likes some previous edition. These guys don't like the changes that took place after their favored edition. They may in fact hate 3e. If they don't like 4e it is because it continues a trend away from whatever they found appealing in older editions. Again, discussion of 3e may not be productive.
3. "The Grognard II" excited about 4e, likes some previous edition. These guys enjoy some previous edition of d&d that is typically not 3e. They are excited about 4e because it seems to be a return to the flavor/mechanics they prefered. These folks may get upset if praise for 4e is coupled with criticism of previous editions.
4. "On the fence 3e gamer." ambivalent. These guys have problems with 3e but they also really like some aspects of it. They may pick up 4e as replacement if it adequately deals with the problems without throwing out what they like about 3e. Each has a different set of concerns so they often disagree with each other about whether a change is an improvement.
5. " 3e House-ruler" 4e seems unnecessary, 3e flawed but acceptable. These guys think there are problems with 3e but believe that they can/have been adequately addressed with house-rules. They tend to think 4e is unnecessary because the core of 3e is still strong. They may also like occasional pieces of 4e architecture and are quick to pick up pieces that can be house-ruled into their game. A subspecies of this group couches this argument in terms of time and money invested in 3e.
6. "3e super-fan" 4e looks terrible, 3e is great. These guys don't have many complaints about 3e so 4e is just messing with a good system.
7. "4e super-fan" 4e looks great, previous editions are terrible. These guys love what they have seen about 4e. They are not happy with previous editions.
8. "A different game to play" 4e looks great, 3e is also great. These guys are excited about 4e but also really like 3e. They may also really like other editions. They will continue to play all of them. They generally see no need for comparison between the editions because they don't view them as competing for the same position. A new edition is not a replacement for a previous edition.
9. "The evolutionist" d&d keeps getting better. These guys like previous editions of d&d. Each edition has improved on the last. 4e looks to be a continuation of that trend. These guys are near opposites of "Grognard I" since the latter views the string of changes over the last few editions as a decline in quality.
Edit: One more:
10. "4e house-ruler" 4e seems flawed but an overall improvement. These folks are mostly sold on 4e but are annoyed at a few quirky additions/omissions in the new addition. The core of 4e appears superior to the core of previous editions. Problems like diagonal rules can be fixed. They might carry over some favorite house-rules from 3e. These guys are very similar to the "3e house-rulers" in style but disagree over which system is easier/more satisfying to tweak.
Another one:
11. "Not without my bard!" 4e looks good but it is missing something crucial. These folks really like what is included in 4e. Their problem is with what has been left out. Certain monsters, races and classes are crucial or at least v. important for their campaign settings, adventure ideas and/or role playing purposes. They can't/won't switch until/unless 4e supports these features. Some of these folks will switch over if and when supplements reintroduce their favored material.
1. "Not far enough!" Disappointed with 4e, dislike 3e. These folks have problems with 3e that have convinced them to give up on it. They were hoping that 4e would correct those problems but have so far been underwhelmed by the changes revealed. Arguing against them that "3e is the same!" is pointless because they agree; that's the problem.
2. "The Grognard I" Disappointed with 4e, likes some previous edition. These guys don't like the changes that took place after their favored edition. They may in fact hate 3e. If they don't like 4e it is because it continues a trend away from whatever they found appealing in older editions. Again, discussion of 3e may not be productive.
3. "The Grognard II" excited about 4e, likes some previous edition. These guys enjoy some previous edition of d&d that is typically not 3e. They are excited about 4e because it seems to be a return to the flavor/mechanics they prefered. These folks may get upset if praise for 4e is coupled with criticism of previous editions.
4. "On the fence 3e gamer." ambivalent. These guys have problems with 3e but they also really like some aspects of it. They may pick up 4e as replacement if it adequately deals with the problems without throwing out what they like about 3e. Each has a different set of concerns so they often disagree with each other about whether a change is an improvement.
5. " 3e House-ruler" 4e seems unnecessary, 3e flawed but acceptable. These guys think there are problems with 3e but believe that they can/have been adequately addressed with house-rules. They tend to think 4e is unnecessary because the core of 3e is still strong. They may also like occasional pieces of 4e architecture and are quick to pick up pieces that can be house-ruled into their game. A subspecies of this group couches this argument in terms of time and money invested in 3e.
6. "3e super-fan" 4e looks terrible, 3e is great. These guys don't have many complaints about 3e so 4e is just messing with a good system.
7. "4e super-fan" 4e looks great, previous editions are terrible. These guys love what they have seen about 4e. They are not happy with previous editions.
8. "A different game to play" 4e looks great, 3e is also great. These guys are excited about 4e but also really like 3e. They may also really like other editions. They will continue to play all of them. They generally see no need for comparison between the editions because they don't view them as competing for the same position. A new edition is not a replacement for a previous edition.
9. "The evolutionist" d&d keeps getting better. These guys like previous editions of d&d. Each edition has improved on the last. 4e looks to be a continuation of that trend. These guys are near opposites of "Grognard I" since the latter views the string of changes over the last few editions as a decline in quality.
Edit: One more:
10. "4e house-ruler" 4e seems flawed but an overall improvement. These folks are mostly sold on 4e but are annoyed at a few quirky additions/omissions in the new addition. The core of 4e appears superior to the core of previous editions. Problems like diagonal rules can be fixed. They might carry over some favorite house-rules from 3e. These guys are very similar to the "3e house-rulers" in style but disagree over which system is easier/more satisfying to tweak.
Another one:
11. "Not without my bard!" 4e looks good but it is missing something crucial. These folks really like what is included in 4e. Their problem is with what has been left out. Certain monsters, races and classes are crucial or at least v. important for their campaign settings, adventure ideas and/or role playing purposes. They can't/won't switch until/unless 4e supports these features. Some of these folks will switch over if and when supplements reintroduce their favored material.
Last edited:
I don't see how your typology will generate nearly as many tedious thread-wars of Mutually Assured Condescension unless it can be reduced to something like the ever-tiresome GNS debates.
