D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[FrogReaver]

I wanted to answer without getting sarcastic

Thank you and thanks for the answer.

I was exposed to many many other games all the way back to RuneQuest then Amber Diceless and GURPs and HERO games then Fate and to a lesser degree many independent games Burning Wheel. And being a far and away my favorite bird doesn't make it not a bird. Nor will you ever hear me claim 5e isnt D&D. I will tell you that bird flies a lot lower than 3e or 4e in several important ways. Basically there is no doubt 4e is a brand of D&D and closer to end game 3e and 5e than what came previously.

4e and 5e are alike in ways that make them obviously evolutions within a game now there are definitely backtracks in 5e in my opinion and elements which have high impact on martial classes are simplified to a degree that its difficult to add the strategic and tactically more difficult and interesting choices to the game. (The cake is a lie)

Frogreaver's summarization (please feel free to critique): 4e and 5e are similar but different. They are similar enough that you'd call them both D&D. They are different enough that you have strong preferences for 1 over the other.

I've no issues with that response. Thinking about it some more - I have strong preferences of 5e over 3.5e. I wouldn't say 3.5e isn't D&D but I would say they are very different.

 

[nomotog]

I think 4ed is different from the rest of the editions. There are a lot of little reasons for this, but I think the big one would be that 4ed is very specific, vs the other editions that were more open. Like in 1,2,3 or 5 you have a magic hand it doses stuff, In 4ed you have a magic hand, you can use it to stab for 1d6 damage and inflect darkness.

 

[Marandahir]

(1) The problem is that you are forcing me to engage the tacit assumption of a particular degree of difference between a dichotomy that you create between 4e and other editions rather than simply the existence or character of differences that naturally exists between editions.

(2) You are presuming too much about the reasons why people liked 4e.

If you are trying to ask me whether or not I can sympathize with people who found 4e non-conducive to their play preferences, then ask me that. That is a simpler question and far less loaded about judgment regarding the relationship between 4e and other editions and trying to fish for a "yes" to the presumption that 4e is substantially different.

While I agree with both your points here Aldarc (and especially #2), no one is forcing you to engage in the assumption, just as no one can force Garthanos to reply with his reasons for liking 4e (which he has since that point was made). We all engage on the thread the amount that we want to, and there are times when it's worth stepping away (as your Good Day argument would have suggested you were doing, along side your EDIT that switched to engaging different subthreads of this discussion).

If you want to keep engaging, do so, but hopefully we can all engage with in a less frustrated manner and assume some good faith even when we disagree vehemently.

Thank you and thanks for the answer.

Frogreaver's summarization (please feel free to critique): 4e and 5e are similar but different. They are similar enough that you'd call them both D&D. They are different enough that you have strong preferences for 1 over the other.

I've no issues with that response. Thinking about it some more - I have strong preferences of 5e over 3.5e. I wouldn't say 3.5e isn't D&D but I would say they are very different.

I agree with Garthanos' point and your summarization, FrogReaver, and I'd love to see you and Aldarc able to come to this sort of resolution despite disagreements, if at all possible.

 

[FrogReaver]

(1) The problem is that you are forcing me to engage the tacit assumption of a particular degree of difference between a dichotomy that you create between 4e and other editions rather than simply the existence or character of differences that naturally exists between editions.

(2) You are presuming too much about the reasons why people liked 4e.

If you are trying to ask me whether or not I can sympathize with people who found 4e non-conducive to their play preferences, then ask me that. That is a simpler question and far less loaded about judgment regarding the relationship between 4e and other editions and trying to fish for a "yes" to the presumption that 4e is substantially different.

Well I understand the problem now - I think you did a poor job of explaining it and even this post doesn't help there.

I asked: "Is 4e very different from all other editions of D&D?"
The issue with that is that it is very different from all other editions of D&D and very similar to other editions of D&D as well. That's paradoxical at first but so very true IMO.

I think that's best described as false dichotomy - not loaded question
That false dichotomy wasn't intentional on my part of course.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with you about these possible options – though I don't see Option #3 as particularly paradoxical (One can believe, as Garthanos elucidates above that 4e is much akin to the other editions but achieved greater heights!).

Saying something is both very similar and very different is paradoxical I think. Being paradoxical doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable explanation for the paradox.

It's not so much the question as the framing of it that was the issue.

(FYI, I'm not trying to single you out either as loading the question or having bad faith – it's easier to respond to one person at a time).

Oh it was the question IMO - false dichotomy and all. Of course it wasn't that I was closed to more open ended answers - just that I hadn't considered the possibility for them.

You said yourself that you think a yes is the majority answer, and that you'd be surprised by a no. But you knew already that Aldarc was saying no from earlier in the thread. What's interesting should be the why, and why each of you disagree, rather than the convincing.

Well, up until now I firmly believed @Aldarc was just giving me a hard time to avoid answering the question at all - which until now I believed would have been an answer of yes by him. I'm not sure where you get I knew his answer would be no.

Speaking of - I still believe that if he had just attempted to answer it then most of this would have been avoided.

The original question felt more like a closing argument asking the judge to agree with you rather than opening it up for more discussion on the topic, at least that's how I read it at first.

Probably - I don't claim to have the best style.

At the same time, and especially given the tension of these days, I think we could all do with a little bit more good faith trusting in each other that we're not trying to gotcha and that the medium of writing is not particularly suited toward understanding one another, and tends to heighten disagreements. We're trying to parse it out but it's easy to feel attacked and to want to hit back.

Agreed - that's how I try to act and expect others to act.

I'm not going to speak to all the points you made here because I don't want to get into an argument on semantics or small details, lest I trigger that same trap floor panel! I think you honestly want to know why Aldarc choose Door Number 3, and that may or may not be for the same reasons as Garthanos said above.

LOL.

 

[Marandahir]

<snip>

Thanks for all this! I thought it was clear as day that Aldarc would be saying No, but I guess i was doing a bit of assuming of my own. My apologies, sincerely.

 

[Aldarc]

I asked: "Is 4e very different from all other editions of D&D?"
The issue with that is that it is very different from all other editions of D&D and very similar to other editions of D&D as well. That's paradoxical at first but so very true IMO.

This is a different question than the one that you originally asked.

You did not ask "is it very different?" You asked "can you agree that that it is much different?" Semantically asking an "is" question is different from asking a "can you agree that" question, since the latter tacitly presupposes a "yes" whereas an "is" question does not necessarily. (Hence the loaded question.)

I'm still not sure how well I could answer it, because I don't think that the question "is 4e very different from all other editions?" is a particularly meaningful or useful question. I would prefer looking at "How is 4e different from other editions?" or even "What style of play does the 4e D&D system cultivate?" and then comparing that with other editions.

That said, what matters to me is not whether 4e D&D feels very different from other editions - that's feels like a moot point, almost a red herring discussion to my earlier point - because what matters to me is that 4e D&D is considered a valid expression of D&D at all. If you and others in this thread do so, then that's great. But I do think that a number of fans of 4e feel like they are constantly having to fight for the legitimacy of 4e as a valid expression of D&D. And saying that it's "much different" from everything else comes across as the marginalization, intentional or not, of 4e in relation to its kin.

It would be a mistake, IMO, to suggest that the opinion that "4e is not D&D" (and derivations thereof) and "4e is a valid expression of D&D" possess equal merit or value as opinions simply by virtue of being opinions. Can I sympathize with people who find 4e non-conducive to their D&D play preferences? Most definitely, because SYSTEM MATTERS. Can I sympathize with people who seek to invalidate 4e as a valid expression of D&D? Nine Hells no! I have little tolerance for those who have no tolerance for 4e D&D as a valid expression of D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is a different question than the one that you originally asked.

You did not ask "is it very different?" You asked "can you agree that that it is much different?" Semantically asking an "is" question is different from asking a "can you agree that" question, since the latter tacitly presupposes a "yes" whereas an "is" question does not necessarily. (Hence the loaded question.)

That's totally untrue.

 

[FrogReaver]

Putting a "can you agree" with in front of X doesn't turn X into a loaded question.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

You folks are clearly incapable of continuing this conversation in a reasonable manner. This thread has been getting lots of reports from people on both sides. It is time to give it a rest.