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

[Wik]

I especially liked the part where we said bad things about 4e. That was fun!

 

[jasin]

Basically, the framework of abilities for the various classes are the same. All classes generally get the same number of slots for power and feats. I'm not exactly sure why there is such a big issue about the fact that the steps you go about in creating or levelling up a wizard is very similar to that of a fighter.

One downside comes to mind: the threshold for perceived imbalance is much lower.

In 3E, a 7th-level wizard is casting 1 or 2 4th-level spells. A 7th-level sorcerer is casting 5 3rd-level spells. The wizard needs to pick in advance, the sorcerer can choose spontaneously as needed. But the wizard can expand his repertoire if needed, whilte the sorcerer is locked into his until next level. Which one is better?

I'd say the wizard, but that's almost 10 years of 3E experience speaking. It's also taste speaking; I like versatility. But many people will find enough subjective pleasure in the sorcerer's capacity that they'll prefer the sorcerer, even if there is a consensus that the wizard is more powerful in some objective sense.

Now look at the 7th-level fighter; his top trick might be Whirlwind Attack, whenever he can. The consensus is even stronger that he's weak compared to the wizard, but some people will enjoy the way the fighter works more than the way the wizard works, so much so that they'll prefer the fighter, even if the wizard is certainly more powerful objectively.

In 4E, on the other hand, there's a 1st-level warlock daily which deals 3d6+Cha damage and imposes a penalty. There's also a 1st-level sorcerer daily which deals 6d6+Cha damage and imposes a penalty (I don't have the exact spell names, but the point I trying to make is more general than these two exact powers). They're immediately, obviously comparable, and the warlock daily suffers in that comparison.

Even if you go further afield and look at different roles and power sources, you can still compare powers with an exact 1-to-1 mapping. Paladins get an encounter power at 7th level just like warlocks, and even though different roles and different class features make a lot of difference, 3[W]+Str is still much more readily comparable to 3d8+Cha than Whirlwind Attack at will is to enervation 2/day.

In 4E's unified framework, it's much easier to see imbalances, and taste accounts for less. Whether you enjoy consistency, or a single big bang, or careful preparation, or versatility, the structure of your repertoire of powers and the way the function is always the same, and it's much easier to slip into comparing numbers, and the numbers can only be (to be generous) imperfectly balanced.

To be fair, it should be noted that new classes are changing that in smaller (avenger) or larger (psion, monk) ways.

 

[M.L. Martin]

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!)

But can it stop bayonets and black-powder firearms? We have documented evidence that real rulebooks can.

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?

I thought this was obvious. 4E is all about breaking the game down and rebuilding it to do one thing--fantasy adventuring--very well. That means that some things that previous editions did per accidens got downplayed or left by the wayside. For some folks, this reduces clutter and distractions; for others, it takes away tools they could use to do things outside the assumed norm.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

The assumption is that it's bad. Sameness is bad because lots of choices are good.

(Just a thought, but this drive for lots and lots of options might be a very American notion. If you walk into the grocery store in America, you can find an entire aisle of just cereal. 40-50 different kinds of cereal. Other countries simply do Not have that variety present.)

People interested in reading about this may wish to start with The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz.

Ted Talk here: Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice | Video on TED.com

 

[Rechan]

People interested in reading about this may wish to start with The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz.

Ted Talk here: Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice | Video on TED.com

THanks for that.

 

[Vegepygmy]

What I see the majority of the time is this: 3e fans who do not like or want to play 4e, and who want to register their complaints because they don't like the direction that D&D has taken. And they don't want WotC to make 5e anything like 4e. If WotC sees the unhappiness with their product, they will halt the direction they are going, and swing back in the direction of 3e. I've seen many posters say this is their intention for complaining about 4e here.

Then the posters start listing all the things wrong with 4e. Which is going to cause friction when one person sees X as a bug, and the next sees it as a feature. You may say it's a "problem" you want to "correct", and I see it as an "innovation" I want to "stay".

I can see that such criticisms will create friction. What I can't see is how that makes the criticisms invalid.

I post here for many different reasons. One of them is that I hope what I have to say will take root in other people's minds and influence their future decisions. Nothing would make me happier than to have 5E turn out very differently than 4E did because of something critical I said about 4E here. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[BryonD]

No, but when its phrased in a way that suggests we are unable to perceive the truth about the game we like, or its suggested we're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (like someone did earlier in this thread), that is something definitely against the fans. That's intentionally offensive, and it will provoke a reaction... and not a pleasant one.

Well, I think exactly the opposite can be claimed as well.
I don't mean that in an "I can point my finger at your harder than you can at me" way. I just mean there are plenty of claims such as: there are no honest reasons to prefer 3E and it is just "hatred" of change or whatever.

There are very fair reasons to greatly prefer each edition. A non-gamer may see them as nearly the same, but to a heavy gamer, the differences are quite deep and fundamental.

Simplistic attacks fly in both directions and neither are productive.

So as to avoid a totally non-partisan post:
... While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around. Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.

 

[Rechan]

What I can't see is how that makes the criticisms invalid.

The validity of the criticism depends on the criticism, not by the virtue of it just being an opinion or a criticism.

I post here for many different reasons. One of them is that I hope what I have to say will take root in other people's minds and influence their future decisions. Nothing would make me happier than to have 5E turn out very differently than 4E did because of something critical I said about 4E here. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's wrong when motives and intentions are concealed behind invalid criticisms and used as an excuse to insult others.

KM is saying that people post criticisms because they want to improve it. They don't, they hate it and want to get rid of it. If that's the case, make that clear and at the same time don't be rude about it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So as to avoid a totally non-partisan post:
... While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around. Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.

There is a simple answer to this: 3E is not the elephant in the room. To somebody playing 4E, 3E isn't important anymore. 4E is doing well, RPGA events are being held, its easy to find players, and we're getting new books. To a 3E player though, 4E is the elephant in the room, and being such enters the discussion.

 

[Rechan]

There is a simple answer to this: 3E is not the elephant in the room. To somebody playing 4E, 3E isn't important anymore. 4E is doing well, RPGA events are being held, its easy to find players, and we're getting new books. To a 3E player though, 4E is the elephant in the room, and being such enters the discussion.

I will say that it's the elephant in the room when you have a player in your group who always says "I liked it better in 3e with..." or "I just can't stand how they did..."

Recently I sat in on a 3.5 game where one of the players took every opportunity to whine about how "Well in 2e we did it THIS way" and how 3e dumbed this or that down. It was an utter drag on the entire experience.