D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

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.

Well synecdoche is atleast a real word... and might be appreciated outside of humor context

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You can take a folding chess board and hit someone over the head with it. You may even be able to hurt someone, possibly badly, but it doesn't make that chess board a good weapon.

5e suffers from a similar issue. If you only give the PCs one fight in a day, they are going to smash the living daylights out of it. In any day in which you have an encounter, you have to have 6-8 of them or the game breaks down.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I love the spin that folks try to give these "discussion" - sorry, @lowkey13, but, I don't buy it.

Folks spent YEARS of their lives trying to "prove" that 4e was a "bad game" and that it failed because it was a "bad game". Folks invested a lot of time and effort into the attempt. Which means that things like this thread, cannot be allowed to stand because, if it is true that the powers in 4e were not actually very "samey" but, rather, it was the presentation that gave the appearance of similarities, then that calls into question the years of emotional investment that some people have put in.

So, it cannot possibly be true that the whole "samey" criticism was simply people not taking the time to read the manuals. That cannot be true.

No, it MUST be true that the powers were "samey" and no amount of evidence will matter. The decision has already been made that the powers are "samey". Evidence doesn't matter.

I LOVE it when people talk about how terms like "samey" are so nebulous. If that's true, then all samey actually means is, "Here is something I don't like. It's not enough though that I dislike this. I MUST PROVE that it is BAD!" So, we'll chuck out terms that no one can actually counter and then die on the hill that everything is just opinion and pesky things like facts don't matter.

Gotta love fandom.

 

[Maxperson]

Folks spent YEARS of their lives trying to "prove" that 4e was a "bad game" and that it failed because it was a "bad game". Folks invested a lot of time and effort into the attempt. Which means that things like this thread, cannot be allowed to stand because, if it is true that the powers in 4e were not actually very "samey" but, rather, it was the presentation that gave the appearance of similarities, then that calls into question the years of emotional investment that some people have put in.

This thread simply isn't relevant to that position. The powers did in fact feel samey to some of us. Those same powers did not feel same to you. Feelings are subjective.

You are not going to be able to prove that they didn't feel samey to us. We are not going to be able to prove that the powers do feel samey to you. Feelings are subjective. Just accept that and move on.

So, it cannot possibly be true that the whole "samey" criticism was simply people not taking the time to read the manuals. That cannot be true.

It isn't true. Many of us took the time and they still felt samey.

No, it MUST be true that the powers were "samey" and no amount of evidence will matter. The decision has already been made that the powers are "samey". Evidence doesn't matter.

And now you've gone astray. Don't Strawman us. Perhaps some people are taking that position, but I for one am not.

 

[Garthanos]

5e suffers from a similar issue. If you only give the PCs one fight in a day, they are going to smash the living daylights out of it. In any day in which you have an encounter, you have to have 6-8 of them or the game breaks down.

That is quite different problem in part it relates to how much of spell load out can be used in a given fight in 4e the primary heals were restricted to only a certain amount of your total for a day making it significant... in 4e defensively they do not have a full days worth of defense no the leaders cannot just completely do an entire days worth of healing in one encounter... so even if the entire party has full offensive load out they can be challenged by significantly less than the 4 or so expected encounters.
To be deadly to a player party by the offensive numbers you do not necessarily need more than one level +4 encounter in heroic tier

In a game where the casters can keep on putting all their healing via dailies... you have to pack a whole day into the one encounter. You simply do not in 4e.

 

[Garthanos]

You can take a folding chess board and hit someone over the head with it. You may even be able to hurt someone, possibly badly, but it doesn't make that chess board a good weapon.

I find impactful skills that are more broadly defined and presented to the players and skill challenges providing experience based on well... challenge (which do have huge DM hand as well as encouragement to allow player influence also allowing resources like money and rituals and healing surges to be spent for pretty reliable benefit - I was actually "did not get to experience SC out the door till after it had been fine tuned" so initial issues just arent on my plate - there is some perspective) and rituals to all be great tools to do the job where as DM fudge it and weak skills poorly defined with little player facing information or tools to show player investment(and character effort) in the process not so much.

 

[Garthanos]

And now you've gone astray. Don't Strawman us. Perhaps some people are taking that position, but I for one am not.

No not everyone is using ad populum (which is kind of what he is inferring)... you are right.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

Well synecdoche is atleast a real word... and might be appreciated outside of humor context

I don't see how that's floogerelevant.

 

[Garthanos]

Folks spent YEARS of their lives trying to "prove" that 4e was a "bad game" and that it failed because it was a "bad game". Folks invested a lot of time and effort into the attempt. Which means that things like this thread, cannot be allowed to stand because, if it is true that the powers in 4e were not actually very "samey" but, rather, it was the presentation that gave the appearance of similarities, then that calls into question the years of emotional investment that some people have put in.

Well presentation is a very real thing and as games are also about art and evocation of fantasy an that means it's not unimportant. I loved the Book of 9 Swords presentation and I loved the Heroes of the Faewild (both were both great presentations with experimental things that served coolness big time. They think when we say many things complained about come back to presentation we are writing it off... far from it in my opinion. I mean it's a very real error.