D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Manbearcat]

But if "samey" can include "they drive very differently and owning own vs the other is a significantly different experience" then samey isn't a word with a coherent, sensible, usable, definition. At all. You might as well be saying 4e powers are floogerely.

If we got nothing else out of this conversation, we got "floogerely". And that's clearly a WIN CONDITION in RPG FORUMING.

 

[Oofta]

If we got nothing else out of this conversation, we got "floogerely". And that's clearly a WIN CONDITION in RPG FORUMING.

Now I have to decide if my new word of the day is "floogerely" or "synecdoche". Choices, choices, choices.

 

[Len]

Now I have to decide if my new word of the day is "floogerely" or "synecdoche". Choices, choices, choices.

That's quite a floogecdoche you're in.

 

[fearsomepirate]

My answer, as somebody who played 4e on both sides of the screen for most of its life:

They did at first glance, mostly because all powers of the same tier did roughly the same base damage, but really started to separate once you understood how different effects synergized. Once you understood that this power was for setting up somebody else's daily or that power was to keep the tank in the thick of things, sameyness gave way to floogereliness.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay can we keep floogerely and it's derivitives meaningless nonsense words for as long as possible?

 

[Panda-s1]

If we got nothing else out of this conversation, we got "floogerely". And that's clearly a WIN CONDITION in RPG FORUMING.

I had to google "floogerely" and the only result was this thread, truly a momentous day in the history of English.

 

[Oofta]

Okay can we keep floogerely and it's derivitives meaningless nonsense words for as long as possible?

That would be truly floogerelicious!

 

[Panda-s1]

also maybe I missed it but can we talk about Star Wars Saga Edition? that was basically a dry run for 4e and much more well received by the community as a whole. like I knew at least one guy who LOVED Saga edition despite "needing miniatures" but absolutely hated 4e for some reason, and I feel like it part of it was not trying to package all it's classes the same way.

 

[Garthanos]

No. 4e is combat-focused because of how much real-time is dominated by it. Daily powers didn't work well when a game includes only one combat each day. Thus, if a session = one in-game day; one in-game day = 2+ combat encounters; and each combat = 1 hour, then even a 4 hour session will consist of 50% combat and only 50% other activities.

Or all other activities and no combat at all... sorry does not follow a game day has to include any combat. And all those non-combat encounters in 4e can be fully flushed and provide experience to the pcs. Nor does a session have to be an entire day if you are only playing a couple of hours ie it just does not follow.

 

[Garthanos]

My own view is that 4e D&D is extremely ill-suited to this style of RPGing. Its high degree of player "empowerment" (eg say "yes"-type play, player-authored quests, etc) pushes against tight GM control over the plot.

I always thought even when playing AD&D to get player involvement in the game world the best way was to bounce off of what they were doing and wanting and start that off I had players coming up with where they were from including custom races we built allowing a huge changes to the details of a sometimes vaguely defined part of my game world all centered around their character. Players definitely influenced plot from the get go with all this but also the things they showed interest in I made important... avoiding the dead end thoughts. Was this encouraged by the game? maybe not but it wasn't inhibited either.