D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Hussar]

We are discussing why people dislike a game - what else could we be talking about other than feels?

I'm sorry? The OP asked a specific question and it wasn't "why do you dislike 4e?"... So, no, we're not talking about why people dislike the game.

One day it would be nice to have a discussion of 4E where this pattern can be broken.

A) I don't like 4E.
b) That's ok, everyone likes different things. Why don't you like 4E out of curiosity?
A) Because X
B) You're wrong.

Oh please. Gimme a break. The question was, ARE THE POWERS SAMEY? It was never about "do you like/dislike 4e". That's just what edition warriors turned it into because it would be impossible to actually have a conversation where we talk about 4e without having multiple posters join in on how 4e failed, 4e was a bad game etc.

No one is saying you have to LIKE 4e. But, if the cricitism of saminess is, as @Maxperson just point out, meaningless, then, well, it's rather hard to have a conversation. If samey simply changes meaning depending on the altitude of the observer, then, well, it's a rather pointless observation. What you are seeing is the endless frustration of people who DO like 4e trying to engage and then being hit with meaningless buzz words - samey, videogamey, boardgamey, etc - that all boil down to the same meaning - something I don't like but, it's not enough that I don't like it, I MUST PROVE that it's BAD!

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm sorry? The OP asked a specific question and it wasn't "why do you dislike 4e?"... So, no, we're not talking about why people dislike the game.

I think you lack the broader context to make that assertion. In the thread this one spun off - that was very much what the discussion centered upon.

 

[Hussar]

I think you lack the broader context to make that assertion. In the thread this one spun off - that was very much what the discussion centered upon.

Then why not keep the edition warring crap in that thread? Why infect this one as well?

If samey only exists to a specific observer, then, as a criticism, it's pointless because all I have to do is point to anything, call it samey and you are not allowed to question me on it. You have to take me at my word and accept that it is samey. Which makes it utterly meaningless as a concept. I might as well call it flufflorb for all the meaning you are getting.

 

[Don Durito]

The last isn’t really accurate. It’s more like, “that’s odd, because the specific claim that you’re making about the game runs directly counter on a factual basis to what the thing actual does.”

I mean, I’venever seen anyone say anything like “you’re wrong” in response to claims like “it’s harder than I’d like to run ToTM” or “I don’t want to have to review 17 distinct abilities before figuring out what to do with my turn”, because those reference elements of the game that are factually there.

I have.

But this always runs into the problem I alluded to above with the movie reviewer who says the plot of some geek franchise is confusing and impossible to follow. You'll then get some fan saying that the plot was not impossible to follow because they could follow it. Technically they're right I guess. But the point made by the reviewer was probably not that they couldn't have followed the plot if they really wanted to, the movie just didn't make them care enough to pay attention.

Fans love these kinds of arguments about specific factual points because they're usually arguing from a position of greater precise knowledge. But like in the situation above they can only be technically correct. Like the old carnard, "4E is just like an MMO". Huge amounts of ink was spilled to try and 'prove' this was specifically and factually wrong (usually by going far deeper into the woods of both MMOs and 4E's particular rules then the particular person making the comparison intended to) but completely missed the point that the comparison was immediate and visceral. Even when I was playing and enjoying 4E I could see these arguments were completely missing the point, and I seriously doubt they ever convinced a single person to go back and try the game again.

They may, however, have encouraged people who didn't like the game to become increasingly hostile to it.

 

[Hussar]

On the other hand, hearing "4e is just like an MMO" on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis in what seemed like EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION, did make me rather increasingly hostile to those making the argument, whether or not I was missing the point.

And again, "immediate and visceral" doesn't actually tell anyone anything other than, "This is something I don't like, but, I must justify my opinion."

 

[Maxperson]

No one is saying you have to LIKE 4e. But, if the cricitism of saminess is, as @Maxperson just point out, meaningless, then, well, it's rather hard to have a conversation.

No, it really isn't hard at all. The conversation will just be about what people like or dislike, and how it makes i feel samey to them or not. You just can't have the specific conversation YOU want to have, because "samey" is a vague and subjective term, so you are unable to prove that your way is objectively correct.

If samey simply changes meaning depending on the altitude of the observer, then, well, it's a rather pointless observation.

I disagree. If you take the time to listen to what people are saying, it can help you understand their viewpoint and why they are saying what they are saying. That goes a long way to diffusing hard feelings that people sometimes have with people that disagree with them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then why not keep the edition warring crap in that thread? Why infect this one as well?

If samey only exists to a specific observer, then, as a criticism, it's pointless because all I have to do is point to anything, call it samey and you are not allowed to question me on it. You have to take me at my word and accept that it is samey. Which makes it utterly meaningless as a concept. I might as well call it flufflorb for all the meaning you are getting.

No one has ever said don't question anyone on it. Not all opinions are equal afterall. But surely you can understand the general notion that some things can be "different" but still be so similar that those differences don't really matter. We may disagree on the particulars about which features fall into that category - but it is still a meaningful category.

 

[Don Durito]

On the other hand, hearing "4e is just like an MMO" on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis in what seemed like EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION, did make me rather increasingly hostile to those making the argument, whether or not I was missing the point.

And again, "immediate and visceral" doesn't actually tell anyone anything other than, "This is something I don't like, but, I must justify my opinion."

No it doesn't. A lot of people are very bad at explaining why they don't like something.

This is why arguing with the imprecise way someone expresses their feelings about something they don't like achieves nothing.

A non-hostile conversation that digs deeper might actually reveal something interesting. At the very least it would be a conversation and not an aggressive and hostile shouting match that just reflects badly on everyone involved.

And you could just let it go. I don't really get this strange need to defend a games honour. I played 4E for years and enjoyed it well enough (although there were some elements I was ambivalent about). I never felt my hackles rise of the need to argue with anyone who thought it was basically a board game or was like an MMO. I understand the different between an expression of emotion and a reasoned argument.

I never did understand this forum warrior mentality. (Someone in this thread was demanding an apology for impugning the games honour - that is madness!). All I found was that if I actually wanted to talk about issues I had with the game in some kind of constructive way (such as for example, not particularly liking the way Come and Get It could pull people around without any recourse) that rather than getting useful replies I would just get swamped by edition war garbage from people supposedly on "my side". I actually think this kind of attitude probably did contribute to my souring on the game over time.

And of course, in the other thread that this got spun from, I made a quite long post addressing the actual topic of the thread. But because I dared to suggest as part of a more general post about game design, that 4E's balance may come at the expense of certain kinds of breadth I had to get dragged back over the coals by edition war warriors again.

 

[Hussar]

No, it really isn't hard at all. The conversation will just be about what people like or dislike, and how it makes i feel samey to them or not. You just can't have the specific conversation YOU want to have, because "samey" is a vague and subjective term, so you are unable to prove that your way is objectively correct.



I disagree. If you take the time to listen to what people are saying, it can help you understand their viewpoint and why they are saying what they are saying. That goes a long way to diffusing hard feelings that people sometimes have with people that disagree with them.

Do you like X?
Yes/No

It's a really, really short conversation. Frankly, learning why you might not like a game that's been out of print for years just so folks can drag up the same tired old edition warring crap from a decade ago, virtually word for work, isn't diffusing hard feelings. Good grief, what do folks who dislike 4e have to have hard feelings about? They WON. 4e got buried, never to be spoken of again.

I understand the viewpoint just fine. Folks don't like 4e. Fine and dandy. Folks feel the overwhelming need to justify their feelings by "proving" that 4e is a bad game. Not hard to understand. It's been perfectly clear since about 2008.

 

[FrogReaver]

On the other hand, hearing "4e is just like an MMO" on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis in what seemed like EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION, did make me rather increasingly hostile to those making the argument, whether or not I was missing the point.

It can be hard to accept that other people actually have different opinions about something you like a lot. Hearing such claims again and again does tend to make the hearer hostile - but that's on him and not the person/people sharing their opinions.

And again, "immediate and visceral" doesn't actually tell anyone anything other than, "This is something I don't like, but, I must justify my opinion."

It tells you that they felt it contained too many "important" similarities to an MMO for their taste. Maybe ask what elements make them feel that way as that would be insightful and helpful in understanding their position.

Now that said - sometimes people are just terrible at defining why they like or dislike something and so they may give you the first answer that comes to mind without having thoughtfully thought through it.