A few weeks ago I was in game store and overheard a customer talking with an employee about Wizards of the Coast and 4th edition. One of them mentioned that they had seen several WotC employees at the store recently. That was when the customer said something like, When I see them I just want to walk up to them and spit on them for what they are doing to D&D.
I was mostly stunned because I expect those types of comments on the Internet, but not in the real world. I thought that this was unacceptable and just walked away. It made me start thinking about all the other people who have complained about WotC to me and I realized that they have an significant effect on how I perceive people on the Internet who complain about WotC.
I've talked with two people who play 2nd edition D&D and hated 3rd edition. In both situations I believe I just asked them if they played Dungeons & Dragons. In both situations they said that they liked it, but when it came which edition I played they had a similar reaction. They scoffed and mentioned that was not real D&D.
I believe how I felt at this moment is similar to how people feel when they see WotC is attacking 3rd edition. Often it seems that the comment is just saying that something was bad in the previous edition and they fixed it, but it saying something was bad about your edition I think gets a person riled up. Part of me didn't even want really pay attention to one of them after they made a comment saying that 3rd edition was worse. When I asked him if there was anything better with 3rd edition he responded that there was nothing that was better. His argument didn't matter, I felt he was attacking my edition and I really didn't want to continue this line of discussion.
I don't want to be like them when it comes to D&D. I don't want to jump into 4th edition blindly, but I fear becoming the jerk who hears what edition of D&D someone is playing and even think that my edition is superior to theirs.
There are so many comments that remind me of that type of thinking. Nearly every snide remark that 3.5 will be better than 4th edition make me think of these and I take my opinion and run far away so that I don't become that person.
I feel this way every time someone says that they are glad WotC made a change (often a minor one) because they will now be staying with 3.5.
I feel this way every time I see someone say that people who have trouble with grapple are not trying hard enough.
I feel this way when I see someone looks at the roles and remarks that if they wanted that they would be playing WoW.
I feel this way when someone makes the comment that WotC is evil, or being greedy, or they are dumbing down the game, or whatever.
I am not trying to say that people are wrong about any edition. I'm just saying what types of comments make me throw out all your other arguments.
That was when the customer said something like, When I see them I just want to walk up to them and spit on them for what they are doing to D&D.
Wow. Completely unacceptable.
That is the difference with not liking the new game and being a dick.
That was when the customer said something like, When I see them I just want to walk up to them and spit on them for what they are doing to D&D.
I was mostly stunned because I expect those types of comments on the Internet, but not in the real world.
I'd have to agree. Something like that is rather uncalled for. On or off the internet.
Alright, let me rephrase my basic argument against 4E is a fashion that doesn't go against what you've said so you can take it seriously:
I love many of the ideas that went into making 4E. I don't like any of the implementation.
There's more but I think you get the general gist of my argument. Do you feel you can take this seriously?
And ya know, ain't nobody that's not into D&D is even going to care. It's like watching two Star Trek fans getting all pist off at each other arguing over who was better, CPT. Kirk or CPT. Picard. (well for me, because I'm not really into Star Trek)
So we're going on beating up on the only people that can tell the difference between D&D3.x and 4.x.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And ya know, ain't nobody that's not into D&D is even going to care. It's like watching two Star Trek fans getting all pist off at each other arguing over who was better, CPT. Kirk or CPT. Picard. (well for me, because I'm not really into Star Trek)
So we're going on beating up on the only people that can tell the difference between D&D3.x and 4.x.
That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. Everyone knows Janeway is the best captain in Star Trek canon.
Mha ha ha
I am not actually a fan of Star Trek, and said that just to stir the pot.
(Also, generally a good point made by the OP).
It's like watching two Star Trek fans getting all pist off at each other arguing over who was better, CPT. Kirk or CPT. Picard.
Ohhh please. Picard has much better hair. (Disclaimer: I shaved my head this past saturday.)
That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. Everyone knows Janeway is the best captain in Star Trek canon.
Take that back! Or I will unleash a mass of transphasic photon torpedoes that will knock you into warp 11!!!!!!!
*Random frothing at the mouth until he wears himself out and goes to sleep*
I like making up words. (Like "Cross dimensional resonance phase disruptor")
I think a lot of it is perception. There is enough bile and ignorance on both sides that you could say "I can't take them seriously" whatever side you are on.
The only difference between information and propaganda is which side puts it out.
Darn it, I forgot to pimp Benjamin Lafayette Sisko. The classiest captain in the Trek verse.
|
Do you feel you can take this seriously?
You lost me at: "I don't like any of the implementation."
It's not even out yet, and you already know you don't like *any* of it?
You could say "I haven't liked any of the preview information they've published so far." and I would take you more seriously.
Basing a black and white opinion on limited previews and lots of conjecture isn't very sound to me.
Well, you did ask. :-)
You know, it is rabid fans like the one the OP describes that make me tired of this whole 3.5e vs. 4e mess. I may not agree with some of the changes in 4e (and even argue about some of the changes), but I have run way to many strange varitations of the game for me to say what should and should not be considerd D&D.
You lost me at: "I don't like any of the implementation."
It's not even out yet, and you already know you don't like *any* of it?
You could say "I haven't liked any of the preview information they've published so far." and I would take you more seriously.
Ok, fair enough.
Rephrase: I don't like any of the implementations of the innovations that we have heard about thus far as described to us at present.
Better?
|
|
It's also completely moronic for one simple reason:
The game isn't out yet.
I feel the same way when a poster insists that I am a hater or religious fanatic or invokes Godwin for not agreeing with them that 4E is going to be *vastly* better than 3rd edition, *when they haven't seen it either.*
Craziness abounds.
A few weeks ago I was in game store and overheard a customer talking with an employee about Wizards of the Coast and 4th edition. One of them mentioned that they had seen several WotC employees at the store recently. That was when the customer said something like, When I see them I just want to walk up to them and spit on them for what they are doing to D&D.
Wow...I think I know the store you're talking about. I think I was one of those WotC guys that have been in the store lately.
I'll wear a raincoat next time I go. ;-)
Seriously, people are passionate about the game...heck, here at Wizards we are very, very passionate about the game. Luckily this is not a tactic we use against one another when we disagree. People say dumb things that they don't really mean when they are passionate about something. It's the nature of the beast.
Hopefully when they play 4e they will change their mind and forget all the strange things they said during the wait. The best "revenge" for me is that after the release I'll get a chance to play 4e with this person and we will have a fantastic time playing a game we both love.
I would gladly hazard a loogy for that outcome! But I'm kinda ballsy like that.
Stephen
Developer Guy and potential loogy target.
P.S. Kirk is the man.
Hopefully when they play 4e they will change their mind and forget all the strange things they said during the wait. The best "revenge" for me is that after the release I'll get a chance to play 4e with this person and we will have a fantastic time playing a game we both love.
Despite everything negative I have said about it thus far, I will still give it a fair chance. You guys have produced quite a few fun new concepts and classes in the past and I have no doubt that it will be fun on its own merits. And if, in the end, I end up playing 4E rules with 3E's FR setting (or Pathfinder Chronicles setting), then that's good too.
I may not be happy with everything I am seeing with 4E thus far, but if I am one thing, I am fair. And I will give the game a fair change, on its own merits. Even if I am doubtful that it will ever be "Dungeons and Dragons" to me.
|
A few weeks ago I was in game store and overheard a customer talking with an employee about Wizards of the Coast and 4th edition. One of them mentioned that they had seen several WotC employees at the store recently. That was when the customer said something like, When I see them I just want to walk up to them and spit on them for what they are doing to D&D.
Pitiful. Polarizing.
I was mostly stunned because I expect those types of comments on the Internet, but not in the real world. I thought that this was unacceptable and just walked away. It made me start thinking about all the other people who have complained about WotC to me and I realized that they have an significant effect on how I perceive people on the Internet who complain about WotC.
It is a flaw in formal logic to project all behavior from one. I agree that this response is extreme, but to equate measured analysis with ranting (although there has been some ranting) is unfair.
I've talked with two people who play 2nd edition D&D and hated 3rd edition. In both situations I believe I just asked them if they played Dungeons & Dragons. In both situations they said that they liked it, but when it came which edition I played they had a similar reaction. They scoffed and mentioned that was not real D&D.
I believe how I felt at this moment is similar to how people feel when they see WotC is attacking 3rd edition. Often it seems that the comment is just saying that something was bad in the previous edition and they fixed it, but it saying something was bad about your edition I think gets a person riled up. Part of me didn't even want really pay attention to one of them after they made a comment saying that 3rd edition was worse. When I asked him if there was anything better with 3rd edition he responded that there was nothing that was better. His argument didn't matter, I felt he was attacking my edition and I really didn't want to continue this line of discussion.
I don't want to be like them when it comes to D&D. I don't want to jump into 4th edition blindly, but I fear becoming the jerk who hears what edition of D&D someone is playing and even think that my edition is superior to theirs.
There are so many comments that...
I will give 4.0 a try. I think there are some very creative and engaged people attempting to build a new version of D&D.
I have concerns about what I have seen so far.
To say that everyone who complains about what they see "showcased" so far is operating from deep within some state of rejection related angst is as ridiculous and as illogical as the behavior of your spitter. Your stance seems designed to undercut the credibility of anyone who complains about 4.0, as you see them as bitter.
I personally expect to see a game that has consciously decided to abandon the roots of D&D to broaden appeal and go after a larger market segment. Whether or not hat is the D&D I still want to play will be the issue.
|
|
That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. Everyone knows Janeway is the best captain in Star Trek canon.
Take that back! Or I will unleash a mass of transphasic photon torpedoes that will knock you into warp 11!!!!!!!
*Random frothing at the mouth until he wears himself out and goes to sleep*
** spoiler omitted **
I like Galactica better.
|
|
Hopefully when they play 4e they will change their mind and forget all the strange things they said during the wait. The best "revenge" for me is that after the release I'll get a chance to play 4e with this person and we will have a fantastic time playing a game we both love.
I have a great deal of respect for the work you've done. The RPGA is what it is in large part because of your involvement.
However, your involvement in WOTC makes your objectivity suspect to me. You are involved in the project, and should be enthusiastic and proud of your work. These are your ideas. I believe your opinion is authentic, even if screened by your professional obligation and fiduciary responsibility.
We'll agree we all love the game. We cannot agree until the market passes judgement that this will be an improvement.
Hopefully when they play 4e they will change their mind and forget all the strange things they said during the wait. The best "revenge" for me is that after the release I'll get a chance to play 4e with this person and we will have a fantastic time playing a game we both love.Despite everything negative I have said about it thus far, I will still give it a fair chance. You guys have produced quite a few fun new concepts and classes in the past and I have no doubt that it will be fun on its own merits. And if, in the end, I end up playing 4E rules with 3E's FR setting (or Pathfinder Chronicles setting), then that's good too.
I may not be happy with everything I am seeing with 4E thus far, but if I am one thing, I am fair. And I will give the game a fair change, on its own merits. Even if I am doubtful that it will ever be "Dungeons and Dragons" to me.
This is the kind of skepticism I can understand, and appreciate. No saliva was mentioned at all. :)
|
|
Seriously, people are passionate about the game...heck, here at Wizards we are very, very passionate about the game. Luckily this is not a tactic we use against one another when we disagree. People say dumb things that they don't really mean when they are passionate about something. It's the nature of the beast.Hopefully when they play 4e they will change their mind and forget all the strange things they said during the wait. The best "revenge" for me is that after the release I'll get a chance to play 4e with this person and we will have a fantastic time playing a game we both love.
I would gladly hazard a loogy for that outcome! But I'm kinda ballsy like that.
Stephen
Developer Guy and potential loogy target.P.S. Kirk is the man.
Passionate ? or Fanatic ?
I do not mean to disparage you at all, or any of your colleagues on this post, but given the initial reactions of pro 4e people when the announcement was made, and the level of hatred-filled texts that followed, I would not even want to be around the table to begin with.
to quote Alan Parson's Project : "I wouldn't Want to be like you"
Again applies to some jerks on other forums, and not at you since your post was quite fair.
They've made it clear that they expect high level play to enable the PCs to challenge the gods. Hercules and Xena were fun to watch, but they aren't what I want to play around the table top.
I just wanted to add that we used to challenge the gods all the time in 1E and 2E. That's not a new concept. It's a concept that was shelved for 3E alone.
|
|
You lost me at: "I don't like any of the implementation."
It's not even out yet, and you already know you don't like *any* of it?
You could say "I haven't liked any of the preview information they've published so far." and I would take you more seriously.
Ok, fair enough.
Rephrase: I don't like any of the implementations of the innovations that we have heard about thus far as described to us at present.
Better?
Absolutely! :-)
I have a great deal of respect for the work you've done. The RPGA is what it is in large part because of your involvement.
However, your involvement in WOTC makes your objectivity suspect to me.
Well thank you for the kind words...I appreciate it.
I also agree with you, I'm by no means objective when it comes to 4e...though I can be quite opinionated about the subject as well (as some of my friends and colleagues will tell you). Both of these statements are also true in the cases of OD&D, Classic D&D, 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D, and 3e D&D. All of which are games that I've played and/or loved (though I am about to play OD&D for the first time, which I’m very excited about).
My point is that it’s our (and thus my) goal to make 4e D&D a very, very fun game and part of the grand tradition of the editions that have come before it. I've played it a lot. I like it a lot. I think that I can sit down with friend or stranger alike, and as long as they love D&D they’ll end up having a blast with this game if they give it half a chance.
I believe that in 1974 D&D was at the forefront of the gaming revolution that we are currently enjoying today. I also believe that when D&D changes and evolves it does so because of a desire of its designers and developers to stay current and active in the conversation that is gaming and to make sure that in many ways that D&D revolution continues on in an interesting and meaningful way. Oh, and we love fun and fantasy. Really, we do.
Of course, you the players (and consumers) will ultimately decide if we were successful...all of us are very mindful of that. We are also very cognizant of the fact that our fans and our players are very savvy and opinionated on the subject of game design. Why is this true? Partially because that’s the kind of fan D&D draws, partially because there is a big part of the game that gives a venue and rewards players for being game designers and developers (DMs I am looking at you).
The last thing I’ll every ask you to do is be a mindless drone and agree with me that 4e is fantastic. Please play it and make your own opinion…but do play it. Don’t dismiss it before it is even released.
Oh, and please don’t spit on me. Ever. ;-)
Stephen
Developer Dude
|
|
I may not be happy with everything I am seeing with 4E thus far, but if I am one thing, I am fair. And I will give the game a fair chance, on its own merits. Even if I am doubtful that it will ever be "Dungeons and Dragons" to me.
I had the original books - I'm like, you know, OLD - the original 3-volume set in the greyish box from TSR that I got in middle school. In '77 I got this new "Basic" set for xmas that was ok, but just didn't have the same "feel". Then just a year later the "advanced" rulebook came out! Jeez! Boy was I PO'd! So now I had Basic, Expert, and Advanced? Which one was "Dungeons and Dragons"?
Then a few years later some Ed guy come up with this whole new campaign setting that everyone thought was better then sliced bread? What happened to Greyhawk? Hello?
So don't talk to me about "it's not Dungeon and Dragons". :-) It hasn't been "Dungeon and Dragons" for a looooooong time, but it's still a fun game if you have the right folks together, whatever the crapy rules might be. And it still will be.
-Pete
There's more but I think you get the general gist of my argument. Do you feel you can take this seriously?
Yes, It is mostly the statements calling WotC stupid or deciding that a new mechanic will destroy D&D as we know it that I distrust.
I will say that saying you dislike all the implementation is odd to me, but I guess there is not a lot of information out yet.
To say that everyone who complains about what they see "showcased" so far is operating from deep within some state of rejection related angst is as ridiculous and as illogical as the behavior of your spitter. Your stance seems designed to undercut the credibility of anyone who complains about 4.0, as you see them as bitter.
I think you have misread my post.
First I thought I took great care in not using words like "everyone". I didn't bother to connect the person in the game store to the people complaining about the new edition. It confuses me that you think I was saying that everyone who was complaining was do so because of some angst.
Do I think some of the responses to WotC have been fueled by the person feeling like WotC was finding flaw with 3.5 (and that commentary felt like an attack to them)? Yes, but I would never say all of them are.
Once again I wasn't talking about all complaints about 4th edition.
The people who seem to find no redeemable aspect of the new edition as well as those that make verbal attacks on WotC and employees are the people that I find less credible.
I don't mind people who complain, and I listen to their arguments. But if all they do is find fault with everything WotC does I feel they undercut their own credibility. Not being able to find one thing, anywhere that you like seems to me that the person is just not trying.
I would like to also note that I even though these things I don't like don't apply to 4th edition supporters that doesn't mean I have full support of them either. There are just different things they have to say to make me stop paying attention to them.
Wow...I think I know the store you're talking about. I think I was one of those WotC guys that have been in the store lately.
I'll wear a raincoat next time I go. ;-)
I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to meet you if that was in fact the store in question.
I would gladly hazard a loogy for that outcome! But I'm kinda ballsy like that.
Be careful. I think he might have Point Blank Shot. ;-)
----
Sorry, if this post is a little unclear. I'm having trouble stating my reasons and feelings.
So don't talk to me about "it's not Dungeon and Dragons". :-) It hasn't been "Dungeon and Dragons" for a looooooong time, but it's still a fun game if you have the right folks together,
Crosswiredmind and I basicly came to an agreement in another thread that everyone has their own definition of what D&D is. Some don't consider anything past OD&D to be the real D&D. For me 1E AD&D and 3.5 D&D are the D&Ds to be, each for different reasons. Will 4E be added to that list? I don't know but I am not hopeful. Can it be added? Yes.
But like I said before, I'm sure it'll be a fun game. No matter how you feel about Wizards right now, there is no denying that they do employee some of the top minds in role playing game design (and freelance/contract out to even topper minds like Mona and Logue and so on, yes I know I made up a word in there to make my point but that's beside the point).
Now on to why Wizard's can't take most complaints seriously.
IMO, they do take a not-insignificiant number of complaints seriously. Complaints got the Eberron timeline advance nixed. Complaints got Gnomes in the MMI. And others as well, those are just the only two I can think of on the spur of the moment.
Dungeon and Dragon?
*sad little kobold*
I believe how I felt at this moment is similar to how people feel when they see WotC is attacking 3rd edition. Often it seems that the comment is just saying that something was bad in the previous edition and they fixed it, but it saying something was bad about your edition I think gets a person riled up.
Thank you. I am glad to see someone grasps my situation.
If I haven't been clear, and the chances are good that I haven't, I don't fault people for liking the way 4th Edition appears to be going. After it is released, I won't fault anyone for liking it.
Likewise I don't fault anyone for liking earlier editions, nor for not liking 3.5.
The only things that stick in my mind that I fault anyone for are:
1) WotC marketing "spitting" on 3.5 players.
2) And "pro-4th" people spitting on 3.5 and taking offense at any "anti-4th" people who don't care for the new rules.
Beyond that it is merely opinion, and I can respect that.
I will go further to say that I don't trust WotC - the entity, not any employees specifically - so I do question their sincerity often. I also fear their motives sometimes.
But I do hope 4th Edition delivers to the people that want it.
Word, man.
I agree with the OP. I used to think these boards and their posters were the coolest on the interweb, but now I'm feeling a little discouraged at all the reflexive anti-4E sentiment.
I agree with the OP. I used to think these boards and their posters were the coolest on the interweb, but now I'm feeling a little discouraged at all the reflexive anti-4E sentiment.
Now, I need to ask. When will it no longer be considered reflexive? I am, of course, assuming you would find it all much more tolerable if it wasn't reflexive.
I just wanted to add that we used to challenge the gods all the time in 1E and 2E. That's not a new concept. It's a concept that was shelved for 3E alone.
That depends on who you mean by "we." If you mean you and maybe some people you played with, perhaps that's true. But I played 1E from its inception to its end, and never once did I or anyone I played with challenge a god.
Oh, we heard about people who did. (And we mocked them without mercy. Forgive us. We were in junior high.) But it's not like 3E came along and suddenly everybody said: "Challenge the gods? How absurd!"
The last thing I’ll every ask you to do is be a mindless drone and agree with me that 4e is fantastic. Please play it and make your own opinion…but do play it. Don’t dismiss it before it is even released.
Stephen, thanks for even speaking up with all the negativity regarding 4e being thrown around. I was sceptic when I first heard about 3e as well (change frightens people, and I´m no exception), but the more I heard about it, the more I liked it. With 4e, I sadly can´t say the same thing, at least not yet. I´m still willing to give it a chance and play it some time. I´m convinced that all the folks at WotC do their best to make 4e a fun game - it might just happen that I don´t like it.
The behaviour reported by the OP is absolutely inacceptable - willing to hurt people because they do their job is ridiculous.
I hope we see more WotC folks posting here and not being discouraged by some of the discussions here.
Stefan
Unless you want to start with the assumption that WotC's marketing so far is fundamentally a lie, then there is enough information out to justify a 'no' vote at this point.
What he said. A bit similarly, I'm not playing Exalted beacuse what little I know about it has struck me as "game for someone else but not me". I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm blaming the marketing for not doing proper kind of publicity.
Sure, WotC are allowed to make 4th edition and I won't take it as a personal insult (I do think they are money-grabbing leeches but that is another issue). I just don't care about it.
I am still p***ed off by their decision to kill Dungeon and Dragon though (oh, and bring them back as undead mockery), but again, another issue.
I try to consider myself as sensible person who makes judgments based on data available. At the moment data suggests I have no reason to prefer 4th edition over 3.5.
Oh, and Capt. Picard is so much better than Capt. Kirk.
|
|
Well thank you for the kind words...I appreciate it.
They were heartfelt.
My point is that it’s our (and thus my) goal to make 4e D&D a very, very fun game and part of the grand tradition of the editions that have come before it. I've played it a lot. I like it a lot. I think that I can sit down with friend or stranger alike, and as long as they love D&D they’ll end up having a blast with this game if they give it half a chance. .
I think passion about your work is what marks a great employee. You should care about what you do and be excited by it and I respect that.
I believe that in 1974 D&D was at the forefront of the gaming revolution that we are currently enjoying today. I also believe that when D&D changes and evolves it does so because of a desire of its designers and developers to stay current and active in the conversation that is gaming and to make sure that in many ways that D&D revolution continues on in an interesting and meaningful way. Oh, and we love fun and fantasy. Really, we do. .
If by this you mean that all current RPG gaming owes itself conceptually to D&D, I couldn't agree more. I also read into this that you percieve yourtself engaged in an act of evolution and adaptation. The issue at stake seems to be maintaining currency in the marketplace for you. I respect that. My concern has been the principle around which the new design is organized. Simplyfying and broadening appeal, which seesm to be central to the new design, changes the game. Basic, Expert, etc. D&D were an attempt to simplify AD&D and create a venue to penetrate the market more effectively. That product line was a great base to recuit new players from, but it was not the game I played. At this point I am concerned but supportive. Poorly played, the core base is alienated and there are no DMs to recruit new players. They migrate into the otehr systems that spring up to take advantage of a whole in the market.
Of course, you the players (and consumers) will ultimately decide if we were successful...all of us are very mindful of that. We are also very cognizant of the fact that our fans and our players are very savvy and opinionated on the subject of game design. Why is this true? Partially because that’s the kind of fan D&D draws, partially because there is a big part of the game that gives a venue and rewards players for being game designers and developers (DMs I am looking at you).
I also think the SRD invited players to be part of the evolution of the game. That has deepened people's investement in 3.0.
The last thing I’ll every ask you to do is be a mindless drone and agree with me that 4e is fantastic. Please play it and make your own opinion…but do play it. Don’t dismiss it before it is even released.
Oh, and please don’t spit on me. Ever. ;-)
I will play the game and will DM it as part of organized play. I will probabaly even end up writing adventures for it as I plan on being active in that community and there has been demand for my work. However, what is at stake for me is the future of the hobby. I have seen enough things that I am not enthusiastic about, to make me worried we are about to fracture our play base. This is problematic. Hopefully, it will be a fine system and 20% of your play base will not feel alienated and walk away.
I am not a spitter. I put myself through school as a bouncer. I am more of a head butt then wrist lock kind of a guy.
I am not anti-4.0. I am just very woried that you folks have misjudged the market.
Thanks for your time.
|
|
What he said. A bit similarly, I'm not playing Exalted beacuse what little I know about it has struck me as "game for someone else but not me". I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm blaming the marketing for not doing proper kind of publicity.
Same here, regarding Exalted in particular, and 4th Edition as well.
I don't *have* to play it to see that I don't like the direction it's going in, based on the design philosophy we've seen so far. I've been playing D&D-ish games for 20+ years, and I've got a pretty good idea of what I like, which includes everything from Warhammer Quest to Star Fleet Battles, but, while I like a lot of the very basic ideas (less Vancian spellcasting, even if I'd rather see it remain as an option for people who *didn't* have a problem with it for two decades!), I don't like a lot of the other assumptions ('roles,' different game rules for PCs and 'monsters,' tons of round by round adjustments that sound like they are going to be a bookkeeping nightmare, etc.).
4E sounds harder and slower to play, and a lot 'mathy-er,' which is completely counter the marketing hype (and, I fear, that it is indeed faster and easier to play *for professional game designers,* and not the rest of us who don't *want* to have to invent monsters from the ground up and 'handwave' and 'guesstimate' stats, instead of using an easy chart and modifying them with any of the dozens of options already available).
I'm reminded a lot of the 3.0 to 3.5 design article that insisted that Damage Reduction was changed to eliminate 'golf bag syndrome,' where the Fighter needed a sword-caddy carrying around the half-dozen different types of weapons he needed to cut through DR. This, obviously, was the exact opposite of what happened. 3.0 DR required him to have one weapon, his best weapon. 3.5 requires the sword-caddy with the slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, cold iron, silver, magical, evil, lawful, good, chaotic, adamantine, jade and / or epic swords, for the plethora of DR options. This seems like the same thing to me. New 'syndromes,' like 'Christmas Tree Syndrome,' are being invented to cover problems that the relatively recent Magic Item Compendium, written by the same fellows who coined the term 'Christmas Tree Syndrome,' only recently highlighted! Suddenly, features of the game that were created by this same team (and touted as exciting new options encouraging the purchase of beefy new tomes) are game-stopping 'bugs' that must be 'fixed.'
I don't see the stuff they've been selling us last year and this year as being as 'broken' as they are currently suggesting. Indeed, the most 'broken' thing I've seen lately is the Book of Nine Swords, a perennial favorite over at the Character Optimization forums, and, oh, imagine my utter lack of surprise to read that 4E is borrowing heavily from it!
With 3.5, I can (and did) choose not to buy the Book of Nine Swords. With 4.0, it's assumptions are being built into the core classes. They might be many times more balanced (or, as it seems, the rest of the classes 'balanced' around them), but if I don't like the basic concept, no amount of bells and whistles are going to make it the engine I want to use.