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

[jasin]

For your game it may have been this way.
Can you accept that this does not describe my game?

No, not really. I cannot accept that a high-level fighter can contribute equally as a high-level wizard unless there's some serious hoop-jumping going on, or that it's desirable that he cannot contribute equally.

In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.

It's a very rare golfer that finds it more awesome to be helping out in football than to be playing golf.

However, you need to read more carefully. I was advocating 3E in my post, despite pointing out its flaws.

 

[Reigan]

Class design is already moving away slightly from those presented in PHB 1 & 2. I imagine as time goes on they will push the envelope even further. Will they go far enough to satisfy the people who prefer the way things were done in 3e? Probably not. There is only so far they can go without upsetting the people who like unified class mechanics who don’t want fiddly class based subsystems and the inevitable class balance issues that come with it.
These differences are irreconcilable; some people will be left behind and they are quite entitled to complain about it. That’s the world I’m afraid.

 

[BryonD]

No, not really. I cannot accept that a high-level fighter can contribute equally as a high-level wizard unless there's some serious hoop-jumping going on, or that it's desirable that he cannot contribute equally.

Ok. Your experience is in conflict with mine.

It's a very rare golfer that finds it more awesome to be helping out in football than to be playing golf.

If the game was constantly football, this would be a problem.

However, you need to read more carefully. I was advocating 3E in my post, despite pointing out its flaws.

I got that. I was still presenting my responses to the flaws as you see them.

 

[BryonD]

Class design is already moving away slightly from those presented in PHB 1 & 2. I imagine as time goes on they will push the envelope even further. Will they go far enough to satisfy the people who prefer the way things were done in 3e? Probably not. There is only so far they can go without upsetting the people who like unified class mechanics who don’t want fiddly class based subsystems and the inevitable class balance issues that come with it.
These differences are irreconcilable; some people will be left behind and they are quite entitled to complain about it. That’s the world I’m afraid.

I agree with you completely, except I think the phrase "left behind" is very poorly chosen.

 

[Reigan]

I agree with you completely, except I think the phrase "left behind" is very poorly chosen.

Ok, apologies for any offence. How would you define it?

I think we all have to realise when something we like changes anyone of us could dislike those changes. Its pot luck, maybe next time round I’ll be one of the ones feeling somewhat let down and disappointed with the new rules. I’ll try to keep this in mind when I post.

 

[BryonD]

Ok, apologies for any offence. How would you define it?

I think we all have to realise when something we like changes anyone of us could dislike those changes. Its pot luck, maybe next time round I’ll be one of the ones feeling somewhat let down and disappointed with the new rules. I’ll try to keep this in mind when I post.

No offense taken.

You seem to presume that there is something special about Dungeons and Dragons. I happily left 2E when I found better games. In no remote way was I "left behind" because I was not playing D&D. If anything, I had left D&D behind and was moving on to greener pastures.

And now, from my point of view, I have moved forward again, a small amount, with the advent of Pathfinder. While at the same time I see D&D as having regressed to something less than what it once was. (I suppose one could say I have been "left behind" on the high ground.)
But I most absolutely would not say that anyone who likes 4E has been left behind or regressed. Because every bit of that is completely tied to what I personally want in my gaming sessions. For you, you have moved forward, just on a different path.

I guess you could say I am disappointed in the sense that I can't help but imagine what further progress could have been made in some alternate universe where 4E had been something I would consider progressive. But I'm not disappointed in the changes themselves, as they have no impact on me. At least not beyond me sending my gaming budget to a different company these days.

 

[LostSoul]

I am going to assume that homogeneity exists in 4E.

In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.

What is "golf" and what is "football"?
What rules in 3x do this for you?
What rules in 4E limit this?

Earlier you mentioned creating characters.

What do you mean by creating characters?
What rules in 3x allow you to create the characters you want?
What rules in 4E are keeping you from creating the character you want?

 

[Remathilis]

For your game it may have been this way.
Can you accept that this does not describe my game?

In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.

Your "sucks" and "really sucks" is my "awesome" and "really awesome". Clearly we play differently and thus want different games.

Gonna stop you there.

There are ways to make people shine without making four completely different games for them.

For example, I think its perfectly acceptable that the rogue in 4e (and beginning in 3e) has taken on a combat role. I think the idea that to be good at combat means you must lack in outside of combat skills is ludicrous at best. Similarly, I think the fighter should have a bit more skill choice (perception skills, for example) for dealing with out-of-combat areas. This is not the same as saying "Every class should be a competent warrior AND skill user"; I'm fine with the rogue having lower hp (and thus less staying power) than a warrior, and a fighter having waaay less total skills than a rogue.

I think the better middle-ground (only now being explored in some OGL games) is the "Anyone can do X, but Y class does it better." method. Anyone can fight, but fighters excel at it. Anyone can sneak, but rogues are superior at stealth. Anyone can heal another (nonmagically) but clerics excel because of magical healing; etc. It breaks the niche-protection ingrained in the system (only thieves find traps, only clerics heal) but it doesn't go as far as 4e does (or worse, what some people THINK 4e does)!

Which brings it all back to the very start of this debate. If WotC wants to start getting my money again, they simply need to start making a game that appeals to me. That doesn't mean they need to stop making a game that appeals to you. And it doesn't mean they are obligated to try to appeal to me. It just means they need to sell something I want if they want me to buy. Just like every other company out there.

110% with you here. 4e (after many tries) failed to ignite the spark in me. I won't play a game I don't like, and WotC makes a game I no longer enjoy.

 

[BryonD]

Gonna stop you there.

Ok, I'm just run around you then.

There are ways to make people shine without making four completely different games for them.

For example, I think its perfectly acceptable that the rogue in 4e (and beginning in 3e) has taken on a combat role. I think the idea that to be good at combat means you must lack in outside of combat skills is ludicrous at best. Similarly, I think the fighter should have a bit more skill choice (perception skills, for example) for dealing with out-of-combat areas. This is not the same as saying "Every class should be a competent warrior AND skill user"; I'm fine with the rogue having lower hp (and thus less staying power) than a warrior, and a fighter having waaay less total skills than a rogue.

I think the better middle-ground (only now being explored in some OGL games) is the "Anyone can do X, but Y class does it better." method. Anyone can fight, but fighters excel at it. Anyone can sneak, but rogues are superior at stealth. Anyone can heal another (nonmagically) but clerics excel because of magical healing; etc. It breaks the niche-protection ingrained in the system (only thieves find traps, only clerics heal) but it doesn't go as far as 4e does (or worse, what some people THINK 4e does)!

Huh? I think you've gotten lost in the analogy somewhere. Because, honestly, I don't see how this contradicts anything I'm saying.

Obviously there is a lot of overlap. But you can get into very specific instances where the overlap doesn't reach. I think both pieces are a good thing.

 

[BryonD]

nevermind