D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[FrogReaver]

Well no of course it isn't.

Am I really going to be the first to point out that it is not even a word?

Don't be pedantic. Of course it is a word.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

You say that like anyone should care to convince someone who is making specious arguments about something they didn’t bother to try to understand.

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well no of course it doesn't.

Am I really going to be the first to point out that it is not even a word?

Of course it’s a word. It’s used regularly in a consistent context by a culture or subcultural group. That literally makes it a word.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

One and the same thing IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One and the same thing IMO.

That is patently absurd.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It does and we've explained why about 50 times now. But your welcome to have the opinion that our definition of samey is to samey to be meaningful to you

You haven’t, actually.

 

[Eric V]

Rarely is "samey to me, based on XYZ" ever directly comparable enough to another game that such a person likes where they don't feel it's "samey to me, and also has XYZ". Usually it's the person arguing against their opinion that is trying to state that game A and game B both have XYZ when they really don't (or at least don't to the same degree).

Nah, they usually do both have XYZ, with maybe a difference in presentation. That's why I thought the conversation was getting somewhere when someone said it was about how the maneuvers/spells/etc. all shared the same format...but then people rushed in to say that no, that wasn't the case.

Oh well. There are objective measures that can be used to talk about this kind of stuff (frequency of basic attacks used per combat, commonality of spells cast, etc.) that might shed some light on things...but none of that can stand up to feelings-fueled cognitive dissonance, so...yeah.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is patently absurd.

Objectively describing game systems does nothing in a like/dislike discussion. One can do that but it's perhaps more pointless than anything mentioned in this thread. Keep in mind an objective description of 4e is that classes get powers. Those powers often take the form of deal W damage and do some effect. That's an objective 4e evaluation.

Whether that's good or bad, whether that's samey or not samey - the interesting differences of opinion we have - that's the subjective stuff.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nah, they usually do both have XYZ, with maybe a difference in presentation. That's why I thought the conversation was getting somewhere when someone said it was about how the maneuvers/spells/etc. all shared the same format...but then people rushed in to say that no, that wasn't the case.

Oh well. There are objective measures that can be used to talk about this kind of stuff (frequency of basic attacks used per combat, commonality of spells cast, etc.) that might shed some light on things...but none of that can stand up to feelings-fueled cognitive dissonance, so...yeah.

I think you are projecting what you think the issue is instead of actually listening to the people describing their issues. When that is described to them and they say no that's not it - i don't know what on earth could make you think that would be untrue.

 

[Eric V]

I think you are projecting what you think the issue is instead of actually listening to the people describing their issues.

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."