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

[catastrophic]

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.

4e isn't homogenous, that's something you've invented. 4e is just as versatile as 3e. But moving on from that.

It's all well and good to talk about different players taking a spotlight. That happens in 4e as well. Ritualists, people with the right skill, the toughest character in a hard fight, there are all sorts of situations where somebody is in the spotlight and running with the ball.

The problem is that in 3e, you're not really getting to take the lead. A fighter past 11th level never really gets the ball unless the other players pass it to him out of pity. Put simply, you're never going to really play tennis. You're going to play football (combat), or golf (skills), or badminton (roleplaying), but at no point is your tennis pro or curling expert actually going to be useful in the game, unless the GM contrives it that he is.

A skill-based character may be useful, but in 4e, everyone gets to be skill based if they want, and there's enough diversity that different pc's skills will matter more or less in different scenes- in fact one of the things I don't like about skill challenges is how often they favour certain skills, I feel that all skills should be aplicable to all challenges. That is not the case, and most skill challenges focus on a small subset of skills.

Hence, an athletic fighter won't have much to do in a social skill challenge. An intimidating rogue can actually blow a skill challenge by trying to threaten the wrong person. Different people have to take the lead in different situations.

Regardless of 4e, 3e's varety is not genuine, because mostly it just leads to bad builds. They're not different, they're just not going to DO anything, and if they do, it's skill rolls and roleplaying, and you can do that in 4e until the cows come home.

I guess maybe you like the idea of the party fighter past 11th level being mind-controlled or terrified in every other fight but. . . . what does a fighter get to do at that level? Suck up damage? That's it? That's not a choice, that's a consolation prize.

 

[catastrophic]

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

So again, everything is just a matter of opinion, everything is relative, nothing can ever really been determined or discussed. I get why you like that idea, because it allows you to just endlessly post and argue and ignore any rebuttal, but it's not actually constructive or useful. The fact is that some arguments are absurd. Some positions are not valid. It does happen. People are often unreasonable, and it's doubly unreasonable to insist that nobody is ever allowed to say that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4e killed my dog.

Happy now?

I am sorry for your loss. But are you sure it was really 4E? I mean, if you looked closely, wasn't it the 3E PHB and DMG that was stacked on it that contributed to the deadly weight, and if it had just been 4E, the dog might have been fine?

I mean, I am not bashing 3E or anything, I am just saying the 3E books are a little... heavy.

 

[Diamondeye]

It really never ceases to amaze me how loudly people will insist that someone else's opinion isn't really their opinion.

 

[Ariosto]

I can see potential problems with class balance in 3e, but they really derive from the very process of making classes more similar that 4e continues. The magician was made more of a warrior, and had both survival rate (especially at low levels) and ease of access to desired magical effects boosted -- while still getting tremendous powers at high levels.

Being both magician and as capable a warrior as a non-magician is clearly an advantage. With 4e, the choice was to cut back on, and spread around, the magician aspect.

 

[Primal]

I am sorry for your loss. But are you sure it was really 4E? I mean, if you looked closely, wasn't it the 3E PHB and DMG that was stacked on it that contributed to the deadly weight, and if it had just been 4E, the dog might have been fine?

I mean, I am not bashing 3E or anything, I am just saying the 3E books are a little... heavy.

Nah, 3E or 4E books are not even heavy... you could kill a grown-up with a copy of PF RPG!

(I know, 'cuz I tried it on my neighbor!)

 

[Roland55]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Please ... relax ... take a deep breath ... stop being so emotional.

It's a game. Not everyone sees it the same way, of course. How could we, being so different ourselves?

Other people can have different opinions without being bad ... without being out to get your favorite game.

This Thread was interesting. And then people began to get over-emotional.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It really never ceases to amaze me how loudly people will insist that someone else's opinion isn't really their opinion.

Yes and no.

Not liking specific aspects of 4E or the game itself is a perfectly valid thing. Disliking 4E doesn't really explain the level of negativity that gets thrown at the game though, and it isn't enough on its own to cause the Edition Wars we've been seeing since the release. Being displeased at the loss of 3E/OGL as the preeminent game in RPGdom and official and supported bearer of the D&D name does explain the anger.

In other words, your opinion is perfectly good and valid, it just doesn't explain why these arguments go the way they go.

 

[Primal]

Catastrophic, I think people are trying to point out that while everyone here usually remembers to add 'I think...', 'in my opinion...', 'I may be wrong, but...' etcetera to their opinions, you present yours (and dismiss those of others) as if there would be no question or doubt to their absolute truthfulness. And I'll readily admit that this is one of things that really irritate me in forum discussion.

If you honestly want to have a decent, respectful and constructive discussion about a subject, remember to respect the other posters and their opinions.

 

[Imaro]

Yes and no.

Not liking specific aspects of 4E or the game itself is a perfectly valid thing. Disliking 4E doesn't really explain the level of negativity that gets thrown at the game though, and it isn't enough on its own to cause the Edition Wars we've been seeing since the release. Being displeased at the loss of 3E/OGL as the preeminent game in RPGdom and official and supported bearer of the D&D name does explain the anger.

In other words, your opinion is perfectly good and valid, it just doesn't explain why these arguments go the way they go.

I find your phrasing a little odd... as if only those who don't like 4e can cause edition wars. This thread was pretty peaceful and interesting (and I found the views of both sides interesting) until a 4e fan came charging in all taking no prisoners and ready for a fight.