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

[Giltonio_Santos]

An analogy. Say I am a carpenter. I love wood, different grains, species, color, warmth. I design and build a kitchen/dining room. I use cherry for the cabinets of the main part. I use maple for my island. I use a hard oak sealed for my countertops. I have a lovely chestnut brown bamboo for my flooring. I have a pine wainscoting that accepts a wonderful stain. I revel in the variety of my wood, working with each to interweave the grains together, making a wonderful composition.

Another person walks in and says, "Wow, that's a lot of wood! This kitchen could have used some color!"

If wood in your analogy means combat, than you have what some of us end up seeing as the real flaw with 4E. The game could have used a lot of extra colors there, but the designers decided to spend almost all their time researching the richness of wood variety. I like wood, but other materials could also be put to good use.

Some say that being rules-light out of combat makes 4E a better narrative experience than 3E. In my opinion, that's absurd; they are, in the best of worlds, equal in this regard. There are various good RPGs out there with great narrative mechanics that could have inspired the D&D designers to create a game that was meaningful to all characters in different ways all the time.

But they were too worried with the wood...

Cheers,

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's not a bad analogy. I used the "3,000 copies of the same picture at a slightly different tint" vs. "3,000 different pictures" argument, but it's kind of the same thing: minor differences in detail vs. big differences in broad things.

For me, I get the homogeneity, and I do support the reasons for it's implementation (nixing accidental suck, allowing everyone to participate, etc.), but I think it also probably goes too far in unifying everything. Combined with 4e's narrow mechanical focus on tactical minis combat, you get a game that, to me, is very much one thing, instead of many things.

This has good and bad effects. I think we can preserve the good effects and mitigate the bad effects within 4e's framework, but it does require a different vision of how the game can play.

 

[Henry]

I feel sort of similar to Kamikaze Midget on the issue: I do enjoy the fact that the math works better than it has in a long time (IMO it hasn't worked this well since AD&D at low levels!) but it's true in that the utilities are where the classes seem to get most of their "class distinctiveness" and hence could have used more slightly more utilities, in my opinion, or maybe not more utilities, but give everyone the ability to switch out utilities more often than just at retraining.

From the DM's side, they won me over despite my initial feelings - I feel like I haven't had that much implied freedom since 2nd edition.

 

[Stuntman]

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. When you actually play them, they feel different. They are specialised to do different things when you play and thus are different.

Why is it so important that building characters of different classes be different? The main reason why you build characters is so that you can play them. The amount of time you spend building a character is likely a fraction of the time you would spend playing it. I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.

 

[Deverash]

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. When you actually play them, they feel different. They are specialised to do different things when you play and thus are different.

Why is it so important that building characters of different classes be different? The main reason why you build characters is so that you can play them. The amount of time you spend building a character is likely a fraction of the time you would spend playing it. I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.

There are some people who enjoy the challenge of making an effective character. For them, the game starts not when you all sit down to play your first session, but when they sit down with the rule books and start statting out a character. From that point of view, the game is less. My opinion that is more than compensated for by a much more balanced in-session experience doesn't subtract from their opinion that they lost more that was given up.

 

[Stuntman]

There are some people who enjoy the challenge of making an effective character. For them, the game starts not when you all sit down to play your first session, but when they sit down with the rule books and start statting out a character. From that point of view, the game is less. My opinion that is more than compensated for by a much more balanced in-session experience doesn't subtract from their opinion that they lost more that was given up.

I agree that there are people who enjoy building a character. In the end, the final product is a character that performs well when played. Also, when building characters, you are still looking up different powers, feats and other abilities as well. Those features you are researching generally do different things even though you may choose the same number of them at different levels.

I don't see building characters any different than the fact that casting spells in 4E is the same as attacking with a weapon. In 4E, both use the same mechances, but in previous editions, they use different mechances. The fact that 4E uses the same mechanics doesn't change the fact that a spell caster feels like he is casting spells and the fighter feels like he is swinging his weapon.

If anything, it seems that some people like the fact that certain classes in previous editions have way more options than in 4E. Spellcasters had many, many pages of spells from a great many sources to choose from. Nonspellcasters had much fewer options. In 4E, by slicing the options pie equally amongst all of the classes instead of concentrating them in a few, players can no longer choose the classes with the "great many" options because they are all roughly equal in the number of options.

 

[Ainamacar]

Why is it so important that building characters of different classes be different? The main reason why you build characters is so that you can play them. The amount of time you spend building a character is likely a fraction of the time you would spend playing it. I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.

This isn't necessarily true. I made many 3.5 characters solely for enjoyment, many of which I never played or even intended to play. I would volunteer to make or assist making other PCs for players who didn't care for building or were new. I made all sorts of NPCs for my DMs and even their friends who were DMing completely different games. Point of fact, I got at least as much enjoyment from building characters as from actually playing them.

I'm not alone in this, I know at least one other individual who never played 3e at all, but bought books and made characters as a fun past-time. (Mind you, I'm not claiming anything about how prevalent this behavior is, just that it is one way to enjoy D&D).

I like 4e for a whole host of reasons, although I have my grumblings with some of its parts. I also don't make characters for fun anymore, in large part because they tend to build the same (with respect to my enjoyment at least). Yes, characters do play differently for the most part, but that is only part of what I enjoy.

If I were to change one thing about 4e it would be to make the at-will/encounter/daily framework more general. The number of "power slots" gained and when they are gained can remain fixed, but classes can use them much more freely. I think 4e can support this change, and I wouldn't be surprised if this territory was explored quite fully later in the game's life (the psion is a start!). For example, a class might only gain at-will powers, "encounter" slots might be spent to upgrade the at-will powers in various permanent ways, and "daily" slots might be special and powerful improvements to various at-will powers that only obtain under special circumstances fairly difficult to achieve (a prone and dazed bloodied enemy, for example). Something like that would have fulfilled what feels most natural (to me) for martial characters or a 3.5-like sorcerer/warlock.

It would also make it easier to bring back a "starter character" class that can be really darn effective without the resource management currently needed. Finally, and it's mostly just a pet-peeve, but I really hate the (not quite but almost mandatory) power swapping as level increases. If a character wants to use the sleep spell all the way from level 1 to 30, and have it remain effective the whole time, I think that should be an option for at least some classes. I value character continuity, and the power swapping rubs me the wrong way. Mind you, I think retraining is a good idea and I'm glad it was codified into the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.

Well, from where I'm standing, the big complaint is that they actually play largely the same.

Build is a part of the argument, but I think it's a pretty minor part of the argument.

 

[Thasmodious]

I really don't get how people feel that 4e characters all play the same. My gaming experience has not even come close to that. The characters play very distinctive and have room to be distinctive among members of the same class.

I love creating characters. I strongly disliked building characters in 3e. So much so, I usually farmed it out to some optimizing friends of mine. Building a 3e character took forever. You have to plan your build for 20 levels, figure all your feats and requirements for every prestige class you planned to take along the way, skill choices all the way up so you could hit minimums, none of that speaks of "choice" or "freedom" to me, just tedious mechanical tinkering.

I like to create characters. I like to spend an hour working on background, personality, personal style and all the touches that speak to me of character depth and define what I want to play and then crank out stats in 10 minutes. I hate pouring through a dozen books looking for one of 3000 feats to fit my character or trying to find the right combination of base and prestige classes to give me permission to play my concept.

A gripe I have now with 4e is the number of feats they already have, and it will only grow. The CB mitigates a lot of this, as it filters invalid choices. I would love to see the feat system in D&D take on the broadness of other elements of 4e. Feats like weapon expertise are great, apply bonus to any weapon. I dislike the more directed feats. You can do some cool stuff with them, but I don't think the trade off of the tedium of pouring over massive lists of feats versus the small boost to customizing your frost wizard lasting frost gives you is worth it. Give me a single feat that gives a +2 to damage by energy type and an effect bonus (save debuff, vulnerability, whatever) based on the energy type. I'll flavor the hell out of it myself, thanks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really don't get how people feel that 4e characters all play the same.

Like the OP says, when you're seeing room of dynamic variety, I'm just seeing a pile of wood. You find variety in the details, but you're looking at it very closely. Draw back your gaze, and you can see how everything is very similar broadly, even if it has specific differences.