What is your top question/concern about 4th edition?

[Wormwood]

That it's going to fall short of being a great game because it tries to hold onto the wrong D&Disms.

You summed up my entire feelings on this subject in one sentence.

Bravo!

 

[Shortman McLeod]

My main concern is that in the lead up to 4e all of the anti-4e rhetoric and hyperbole will make my head explode. (Yes, that too was hyperbole).

Actually, it was a metaphor.

 

[pawsplay]

Will I be able to convert a 3e campaign to 4e? Will I be able to convert characters, at least holistically?

What is going to be done with clerical magic?

Is Greyhawk dead? Are all things Greyhawkian dead? Mystara, moreso?

 

[MaxKaladin]

That in their statement they are going to make it more like WOW, they are going to make it into WOW.

They've actually stated this? If so, I'd be very interested in seeing the source. The snippets I've seen make me think that they're trying to make it like WoW but I've seen plenty of people argue that that's not what they're doing. If they've actually come out and said it, I'd love to be able to direct people to the source.

 

[WayneLigon]

They already have that game... It's named Role Master and commonly called ROLL Master for a reason...

No, that's called 'almost every other RPG in existance except for D&D'.

 

[Stalker0]

My question is....did all of these questions get asked when 3e came out?

I started playing dnd right after 3e came out, and I wasn't on enworld then.

But I would like to know, when 3e was announced were people saying it wasn't dnd, that they wouldn't switch, that the game had become too video gamey and lost its spirit, that the mechanics were too radical, etc.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But I would like to know, when 3e was announced were people saying it wasn't dnd, that they wouldn't switch, that the game had become too video gamey and lost its spirit, that the mechanics were too radical, etc.

In order...

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

 

[Beckett]

I'll be the first to confess. Now, who are my four accomplices?

Yo.

Think that's all five of us now. Do we summon Captain Planet now, or just form Voltron? Or maybe summon Charles Darwin ?

 

[Hejdun]

No Gnome (confirmed?)
No Druid (suspected)

Which is of particular concern to me, seeing as how I'm playing a gnome druid, which would make it pretty hard for me to remake the same character for 4e.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

My question is....did all of these questions get asked when 3e came out?

I started playing dnd right after 3e came out, and I wasn't on enworld then.

But I would like to know, when 3e was announced were people saying it wasn't dnd, that they wouldn't switch, that the game had become too video gamey and lost its spirit, that the mechanics were too radical, etc.

Not as I recall. Remember, TSR had gone bankrupt, 2E had gotten bloated with the Skills & Powers options, and with new ownership a new edition made sense. You had a great deal of streamlining with 3E and that was part of its appeal. The bankruptcy shouldn't be ignored either -- there was a time before 3E when D&D fans thought the system was dead for good.

The biggest change was the unifying mechanic of d20 plus modifiers, higher is better. That made a lot of sense and was generally well-accepted. Additive multiclassing was more intuitive and more elegant than the 2E version. Feats didn't seem a big deal at first, just allowing for a bit of customization (I certainly didn't perceive how much of an impact Power Attack would make). 3E really didn't change any game design principles the way 4E looks to. Demihuman level limits almost never came into play in 2E, so removing them wasn't a big deal; opening up all classes to all races was interesting, but IME you still mostly saw dwarves as fighters, halfling as rogues, and elves as whatever they wanted to be -- just as in 2E.

The two biggest changes in 4E seem to be a complete abandoning of two design principles related to wizards. Paraphrasing from the Mentzer and Moldvay Basic Sets:
1) Wizards start weak but can eventually become very powerful;
2) Magic is useful, but it is limited, whereas strength can be used as often as needed.
Is it still "D&D" if these principles no longer apply, or is it "d20 Fantasy"? If all classes are equally powerful at all levels, and resource management is the same across all classes?

Edit: as a Basic/Expert fan, some 1E/2E innovations (such as Exceptional Strength) had ALWAYS bugged me. A horrible, horrible mechanic. I was glad to see it gone in 3E, as it felt like a reversion to a system that I preferred. In a similar vein, I am cautiously optimistic about 4E returning to some of the more successful aspects of earlier editions, such as monsters not using PC rules in their design. Although I'd still like to play a high-risk, high-reward, delayed-gratification, resource-managing wizard.