On homogeneity, or how I finally got past the people talking past each other part

[BryonD]

Coming from you that is astoundingly ironic. You are exactly what i'm talking about. This is a planetary-scale irony event. For real, somebody get the EU on the line, I think Cern just exploded from all the irony.

You can hide behind this ridiculous line about respecting points of view, but this isn't about different points of view. This is about people hating 4e and reaching to the point of absurdity in order to rationalise and legitimise their hostility. And once they do that, they post over and over and over again and, don't pretend that those debates ever go anywhere. Yes, they gratify you, I get that, but otherwise they're toxic and destructive and pointless.

You're not respecting different points of view when you endlessly bludgeon everyone with your posts on these threads for page after page after page. Don't pretend you have any respect for people's points of view, you certainly don't show any respect for the people who try and reason with you.

I honestly wonder if you are delusional.
I figure you are just being intentionally absurd. But I wonder....

Admin here, breaking into the post. If anyone reading this series of responses is thinking "wow, is this sort of post okay?" the answer would be a flat-out "no". Please see my warning on page 8 before you're even tempted to respond, and please take these posts as an example of how not to carry on a discussion where emotions run high. ~ PCat

 

[Imaro]

So what you're saying is that nobody is allowed to say anything is valid or invalid, or credible? Ok so where does that leave the discussion? Or do you tolerate certain experts, IE people you agree with?

Nope, what I'm saying is no one voted you "King of the Hill" to make that type of decision... so how about you state your opinion about the actual topic, like everyone else, and leave the defending of 4e's honor to someone else. You're not discussing anything you're trying to shut discussion down and or rile up an edition war (probably again to get the thread closed).

Well if you'd taken my advice you could be having a much more constructive discussion, but please, by all means, keep fumbling around in your bizzare limbo-zone where everythining is just, like, your opinion, man, and nobody is allowed to actually SAY anything. I'm sure that will be a very fruitful discussion.

Soo why don't you go start your own thread about what you wish to discuss... yeah, amazing but forums actually work like that, instead of threadcrapping in someone else's?

As far as fruitful... were discussing a game about pretending to be elves... not discussing world hunger... really, some perspective would be good.

I suspect at the end of this discussion you'll be very similar to where you began, and in another day or two another very important conversation will begin about why 4e allows fewer angels to dance on the head of a pin.

And? If you don't like where the thread is headed... do us all a favor and stay out of it.

If people weren't crapping all over the forum with this garbage it would not be an issue, but this cycle of nonsense is endless, and I have as much right to comment on that as you have to post a thread about how 4e is too Unitarian for you.

Hey when did you become the "Forum police"... I thought that's why we had mods. I don't object to you stating your opinion, but how about you go do it in your own thread so the rest of us can threadcrap in it read your important and oh-so-cliched-rants while still continuing to enjoy this topic.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There is truth to the statement that actual criticism and discussion of 4E's issues get drowned out by people who are trying to justify their preference for 3E over 4E. If the topic is what is wrong with 4E, "3E did it this way" or "I prefer 3E" don't really add much to things aside from stating the poster's preference. Its sad, and detracts from what is likely an interesting discussion, but I'm not sure it deserves a crusade. This is coming from someone who has called people(in general) out on this in the past.



Back to the thread...

Kamikaze Midget brought up an interesting point about combat being only part of the puzzle. I would agree with that statement, but add that throughout the history of D&D, from a system standpoint, it has always been the biggest part. A lot of Roleplaying happens independent of the system, so it doesn't really challenge combat here even if it consumes the same amount of play time or more. Combat has always been central(generally speaking) to D&D, and the major focus of the rules. 3E's lack of balance really detracted from things in light of the games combat focus IMO.

 

[Imperialus]

I actually would call them homogenous when I'm looking for a team made up of a linebacker, a shortstop, a golf pro, and a world-class swimmer. Earlier editions gave me more freedom to represent extremely different powers and abilities usefully in the game. 4e limits these all to football, but what if I don't particularly want to play football? 3e was able (with some difficulty, in some areas) to rise to the occasion, why can't 4e?

The downside to this is that only one of them is going to be having much fun at a given time. When they start out playing football the poor golfpro is going to have his face ground into the astroturf again and again. What happens if the shortstop can't swim when they start doing laps in a pool? The swimmer is going to spend all his time sitting in a bunker hitting sand during the golf game, and the linebacker ends up sitting in the outfield picking his nose while they're playing baseball.

A team full of football players may have less variety, but at least they'll all have something to do during a football game.

 

[BryonD]

The downside to this is that only one of them is going to be having much fun at a given time. When they start out playing football the poor golfpro is going to have his face ground into the astroturf again and again. What happens if the shortstop can't swim when they start doing laps in a pool? The swimmer is going to spend all his time sitting in a bunker hitting sand during the golf game, and the linebacker ends up sitting in the outfield picking his nose while they're playing baseball.

A team full of football players may have less variety, but at least they'll all have something to do during a football game.

So you agree there is less variety? Because that is the crux of the debate.

Arguing that yes, there is less variety *but that is a good thing* is completely different than arguing that there is not less variety.

I can completely understand why the kind of game you describe would not be fun.

In my games the swimmer and the golf pro and the football player are all very engaged in seeing everyone get across the pool. Great fun. I described this type situation in my first post in this thread.

But with me having that point of view, 4E takes a "problem" I don't have (golfer can not swim) and imposes a lack of variety (no golfers on the football team) as a solution. It is lose/lose for me.

It comes down to how you want to play the game. But, if you want to play ti the way I do (and many others) then homogeneous elements are a detraction and there are better options out there.

 

[Ariosto]

"Not having something to do" is a problem I have encountered only in 4e, and only due to the combination of the Powers system with an inflexible DM.

 

[catastrophic]

Nope, what I'm saying is no one voted you "King of the Hill" to make that type of decision... so how about you state your opinion about the actual topic, like everyone else, and leave the defending of 4e's honor to someone else. You're not discussing anything you're trying to shut discussion down and or rile up an edition war (probably again to get the thread closed).

I did state my opinion of the topic: the topic is absurd, and until people recognise that, this issue can't be resolved.

Even if there is something constructive to be achievd here, it won't be achieved while all the 4e-haters are treated like superior beings who must not be challenged. The history of threads like this prove that people are not willing to make progress- and if progress is made, they just wander off and come back next week with a new argument, and the whole thing repeats itself.

Soo why don't you go start your own thread about what you wish to discuss... yeah, amazing but forums actually work like that, instead of threadcrapping in someone else's?

Because as I said, this garbage infects an endless number of threads, many of which could be worthwhile if they weren't torn down into 60+ pages of the likes of byrond going around and around and around while pretending to be reasonable.

And if anybody tried to, say, make a thread about real problems with 4e, the 4e-hate brigade would ruin it with endless reams of garbage about how 4e isn't good at roleplaying because it doesn't not have enough un-rules about it.

As far as fruitful... were discussing a game about pretending to be elves... not discussing world hunger... really, some perspective would be good.

Well obviously we should all stop posting then. You first.

And? If you don't like where the thread is headed... do us all a favor and stay out of it.

I don't like where the forum and the broader comunity is headed, and i'll post about it wherever it's pertinent. This is actually damaging the hobby, and that is a real problem, no matter how much people pat themselves on the back about how reasonable everyone is being.

Hey when did you become the "Forum police"... I thought that's why we had mods. I don't object to you stating your opinion, but how about you go do it in your own thread so the rest of us can threadcrap in it read your important and oh-so-cliched-rants while still continuing to enjoy this topic.

Right, you don't object to me stating my opinion, you just. . . . object to me stating my opinion.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The downside to this is that only one of them is going to be having much fun at a given time.

This is another tenet of 4E that I don't subscribe to: the idea that I should never have to take a back seat to another player, or be out of the spotlight for even a moment.

I don't want to be all "get off my lawn," but is it a generational thing? I mean, to me, part of teamwork is the assist. So maybe I'm not the best football player on the team (maybe I'm the best tennis player on the team), but today we're playing football. That's okay. I'll do the best I can, and I can still help the best football player on the team score a touchdown. It just doesn't bother me.

I've played the wizard who runs out of spells and has to shoot things with his crossbow, I've played the rogue who can't do diddly-squat to undead, and I've played the fighter who can't reach flying opponents...and it has never bothered me. I find other ways for those characters to contribute to the team.

I understand other people feel differently, and for them, 4E is a godsend. I just can't relate to that, and for me, 4E's "solution" (homogeneity) to a problem that doesn't exist (for me) is unnecessary and undesirable.

 

[catastrophic]

A team full of football players may have less variety, but at least they'll all have something to do during a football game.

There is not less variety. It's more like-

Well first let me say, sport metaphors are such a great idea. I mean, really.

That said, it's more accurate to say that in 4e, everyone has a pretty clear role as a footballer(combat), but when playing cricket (non-combat), everone is an all-rounder.

Everyone has a clear role in combat, and in non-combat, there's a more of less level playing field, but strategies and options vary a great deal depending on the context and resources.

And unlike 3e, everyone actually gets to have an impact- and frankly, that synchronised swimmer(bad build) that somebody is playing? They're never really going to matter. Maybe they have a skill nobody else has?

Maybe they get to be party leader, or roleplay a lot? That's not design. That's just as viable in 4e.

3e is not more versatile, becasuse many of it's choices don't really lead anywhere. Choice without consequence is no choice at all. Opting to suck is not a real or exciting choice. It's just a booby prize you get if you don't play a spellcaster.

 

[BryonD]

And unlike 3e, everyone actually gets to have an impact- and frankly, that synchronised swimmer(bad build) that somebody is playing? They're never really going to matter. Maybe they have a skill nobody else has?

Maybe they get to be party leader, or roleplay a lot? That's not design. That's just as viable in 4e.

3e is not more versatile, becasuse many of it's choices don't really lead anywhere. Choice without consequence is no choice at all. Opting to suck is not a real or exciting choice. It's just a booby prize you get if you don't play a spellcaster.

This position is absurd and until you recognize that, nothing can be resolved.