D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[FrogReaver]

No, no...I have read every message on this thread (because I hate myself, apparently?). There's a serious lack of consistency, which is why it's devolved into "well, that's my opinion."

What lack of consistency have I expressed?

 

[Eric V]

That is patently absurd.

Well, it's a thing that exists, right? The egocentric predicament, as described by Perry, wherein one cannot describe the world outside one's own perceptions. In that sense, I suppose he's right.

It is a predicament, however. Most people would understand that to be a limitation of the self, and seek more objective data...like the actual rules text in the powers/spells/etc.

At least, they might if they weren't emotionally invested in their particular viewpoint (which, admittedly, is hard to avoid.).

So, yes, it's absurd (in that it's a predicament and limitation), but it's also a real thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is a predicament, however. Most people would understand that to be a limitation of the self, and seek more objective data...like the actual rules text in the powers/spells/etc.

Good post overall - but this seems to be assuming that we didn't play the game and didn't know the rules text. We all are starting with that in common. The objective facts are the same for all of us.

Some people like the game and see no faults
Some people like the game and see faults
Some people dislike the game and see only faults
Some people dislike the game but can see the benefits the game provides

We are not a big homogenous blob of 2 camps. Even the faults and benefits we see may be different - but again - we share the same objective factual foundation.

 

[Don Durito]

And no, this isn’t like the movie example. No one is missing the point that a reaction is immediate and visceral. The point being missed is that an immediate and visceral reaction is not actually a valid argument that something is bad. All it is, literally all that it is, is the reason that a person doesn’t like a thing. The samey complaint is used, however, as if it accurately describes the system, rather than Just the speaker’s experience and feelings.

Well you'll have to show me where then?

Although I remain perplexed. Surely the word 'samey' as a construction makes no sense to be applied to anything in an objective manner. I mean, no it's not really a word in a generally recognisable sense, it takes the adjective "same" and adds in the suffix "y" which also denotes an adjective (so it's doubly an adjective.) We know what it means because we know how English words are constructed, but it's seems unlikely to reach general usage such that it requires a dictionary definition.

Surely the fact, that it duplicates an existing word, (similar) and the fleeting nature of the construction, indicate that the whole usage of the word is somewhat personal and describes a feeling or impression (impressions by their nature being fleeting and, therefore, the use of such a construction being appropriate)? Usually if one is attempting to objectively describe something one does not use such constructions, objective descriptions by their nature requiring a precision of language that subjective descriptions do not.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, when people say "samey to me, based on XYZ," but another game also has XYZ but is somehow NOT samey...well, there seems to be some cognitive dissonance there. Then, when people try to discuss it, it becomes "subjective."

I don't want to put words in @Hussar 's mouth, but it seems to me the more authentic reaction would be to say "I just didn't like it."

Yuppers. Pretty much nailed it right there.

 

[Hussar]

Well you'll have to show me where then?

Although I remain perplexed. Surely the word 'samey' as a construction makes no sense to be applied to anything in an objective manner. I mean, no it's not really a word in a generally recognisable sense, it takes the adjective "same" and adds in the suffix "y" which also denotes an adjective (so it's doubly an adjective.) We know what it means because we know how English words are constructed, but it's seems unlikely to reach general usage such that it requires a dictionary definition.

Surely the fact, that it duplicates an existing word, (similar) and the fleeting nature of the construction, indicate that the whole usage of the word is somewhat personal and describes a feeling or impression (impressions by their nature being fleeting and, therefore, the use of such a construction being appropriate)? Usually if one is attempting to objectively describe something one does not use such constructions, objective descriptions by their nature requiring a precision of language that subjective descriptions do not.

You'll note, @Don Durito, that the only people who use the neologism - samey - are the ones who treat it as a negative. That we have also started using it means that we've simply tried to demonstrate how meaningless the term actually is and how it's only a pejorative. It's no different than video-gamey or board-gamey. At the end of the day, all these words boil down to exactly the same meaning - "I don't like whatever I'm talking about, but, in order to make my personal opinion look like it's based on objective fact so that whatever I'm talking about is BAD, I'll invent this neologism with a completely nebulous meaning to obfuscate and confound any actual attempt at discussion so I don't really have to prove anything at all."

Yes, @Oofta, it really, really is a bad joke.

 

[pemerton]

Here's my current take on the argument.

Most (not all) 4e powers boil down to:

a) power = roll to hit -> if yes, deal damage (and +special)
b) else, power = roll to hit -> if yes, inflict condition (and +special)
c) else, power = movement (and +special)

That being said +special can take a multitude of form. Honestly, 4e managed to pack an unbelievable about of variance into the +special compartment. For some, that compartment is diverse enough to create sufficiently disparate powers that feel unique in use.

For other, however, those there packages (a, b, and c) are not sufficiently diverse enough, no matter how many unique instances of +special may exist. They expect +special to stand alone (e.g. power = +special).

That's my take on the argument anyway. No one's wrong, we'll all just coming from different perspectives.

This all seems true enough, but most 5e abilities (class abilities, spells) look miouch the same: action type + recharge rate + [to hit or saving throw mechanic + damage + effect] or [movement] or [effect]. It's true that they're formatted differently, but that then takes us straight back to the presentation point.

 

[Don Durito]

Oh I think I get it now.

It's all based on a category error.

Like when someone says that "X film really sucks". Instead of "I didn't like that film".

And then someone says about the former: "You can't state that like it's an objective fact. It only sucks in your opinion", making the error that something which is by itself subjective (and cannot possibly be anything else) can somehow be an objective claim due to a construction of language

 

[pemerton]

Hmm. Let's see. Archery, defense, dueling, great weapon, protection, two-weapon. Then there are 7(?) and counting archetypes. Throw in a variety of weapons, backgrounds (I'm debating having a very thief-like fighter next game) and feats.

You may think they are "all the same" but from a strictly objective point of view there are hundreds of potential build options.

I mean, there is objectively less difference between fighting styles than between almost anything you might want to compare. hell, the actual weapons are less different.

I simply disagree. An archer hangs out in the back, the great weapon fighter is probably charging into the fray and is best against single foes as is the duelist. Dual weapon is great if you face a lot of low level mooks and for flexibility. Protection guy is protecting allies and staying close to them. Defense is turtling.

Maybe a bit like @doctorbadwolf, it just baffles me that this could be a respect in which 5e is meaningfully different from 4e. In our 4e game the fighter charges into the fray and uses AoE, the paladin is good against single foes, the archer ranger hangs out in the back. I just don't get how that is "samey" in 4e but not in 5e.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't get the "samey" feel in TTRPGs or board games or card games (that I can recall), regardless of which one I run.

But I'm going to talk about an instance of "sameyness" in games that does register with me and does have a verifiable impact on play.

If someone wants to use this to help depict how "sameyness" emerges for them, that might be helpful.

Basketball.

I'm defending a player who possesses the following offensive profile:

• Right handed.
• Has pretty solid handles (can dribble and maintain control) going both left and right.
• Terrible finisher at the rim (particularly left-handed).
• Loves 1 hard dribble left > step back jumpshot.
• Cannot dribble right and pull up and hit jumpshot reliably.
• Loves to go right and try to draw a double team and kick the ball to the open man (he may try to finish, but he's a bad finisher).

So those are 7 attributes that amount to a sort of "sameyness" in play, because:

1) I have no fear of him being able to take the ball to the rim and threaten to score. Because of this I can crowd him. Also, I'm confident in my ability to change direction and protect against his dribble drive.

2) I know he isn't going to dribble right and pull-up for a jumpshot, so if he goes right, I can easily give ground.

3) I know if he dribbles left, he is almost_always going to go with 1 hard escape dribble > step back jumpshot. Therefore, I crowd him hard on any dribble left and I stay on his right shoulder to challenge the stepback jumpshot.


Donezo. Overwhelmingly, I can look this kind of player down pretty trivially. I'm not getting beat right on the dribble drive and I'm going to be challenging that step back jumpshot. What ends up happening during actual play looks "samey" everytime he touches the ball (because he's limited himself and I'm limiting him more) and what is happening in my mind while I defend him feels "samey" because I'm not inhabiting a complex mental space (the kind that I would be handling with a versatile, multi-threat offensive player).

Jiujitsu also has a very nice analog (and would be more apt to D&D), but I think this was is much more accessible and hopefully has explanatory power.