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

[Woas]

So, I really don't get where this idea is coming from or where this arugement is going. Every other RPG I've played or read is like pure homogeneous in terms of game-play mechanics compared to D&D, yet they are all well received and to my knowledge, successful with active fan-bases.

Is it just that people want 'games with a game' back for D&D?

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

Nope. I like the broad strokes and don't see what you see, at all.

 

[Stuntman]

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.

Interesting. I find that I build more characters for fun in 4E than I did in 3E. Just because I make the same number of decisions when building a character at any given level, does not mean that those decisions are necessarily the same. I find that with 4E, I always want to pick more things than I have slots for. It forces me to make a decision on what to choose. If I choose one option, I have to choose to give up a second or third good option. I never feel that the character is done and look forward to choosing something more the next level. In the end, even if I do not plan to play the character, I build them with the intention that they would play differently.

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.

Yeah. This sounds a lot like the psion.

I personally got over the fact that non-casters use one mechanic for their abilities and casters use another. I personally see no value in one character that has a lack of options and another character having an overwhelming amount of options.

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 not sure what your complaint is here. If you want to keep your Sleep spell from level 1 to 30, you can.

As for the reason for the power swapping, I think that the intent is to not overwhelm the player with so many encounter and daily powers. I find that a level 1 character already has a great many options in combat. Adding 3 more encounters, 3 more dailies, plus a bunch of utility powers and feats would progressively increase the number of options and things to keep track of at higher levels. Adding 4 more encounters and dailies may not really add much value when playing epic characters.

 

[LostSoul]

I like variety in the game world.

At the mechanical level I don't really care.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

Let me provide an example of this in comic book terms!

If you group the Green Latern with the Flash, the Question, and Black Canary, you find a diverse team full of people with different powers. A guy with super speed would do things differently then a paranoid dectective; who is different from an expert martial artist with a sonic scream attack, and a Green Latern who can do all sorts of things!

Now what if you have a superhero group composed of four Green Laterns? One could think that they are very much alike. After all, they all wear green and black costumes, they all have a power ring, and they all make green stuff appear to do things.

However, each Green Latern is a unique being who uses the ring differently. When John Stewart uses the ring, it reflects his architectural background. You can see every nut and bolt and could mechainily recreate what John summons. Kyle Rayner recreates fictional characters. Hal Jordan keeps it simple with the basic laser beams and force fields.

 

[Wik]

First: I agree with Henry, overall. he summed it up, almost perfectly.

Second: For the first time I can recall, I fully agree with Thasmodius. regarding character building, at least - I definitely prefer creating characters in 4e over 3e, and I wish there were fewer feats. Too much choice is a bad thing!

Now, that out of the way.

People saying that all games are mechanically homogenous have never played, say, Shadowrun. The rules and sub-rules for creating a decker were entirely different than that required to play a rigger. Every character had to be built in a completely different way, and followed different rules systems... sure, while character creation followed the same rules, each "class" had a different emphasis in character creation.... Deckers and Riggers tended to require a lot of starting money (for cyberware and programs), while stealth-based characters required attributes, mages required a lot of spell points, and so on.

Now, I have argued since this game came out that it is homogenous outside of combat - that a fighter isn't much different from a rogue outside of a fight in mechanical terms (yeah, they may have slightly different skill choices, but with backgrounds, even that isn't necessarily true). Some say this is a good thing, some say it is a bad thing. I'm not entirely sure either way, myself. But that, to me, is a fact. Unless you count in things like rituals and magical items (and what 1st level PC starts with magical items? And how much player choice is involved in a PC's magical items depends on the individual GM). Outside of a fight, our Halfling Rogue and our Drow Rogue are almost mechanically better. The dragonborn paladin and the eladrin warlord. And so on.

As for IN a fight... I'd say yes and no. I think the roles are mechanically similar - defenders are up close and take hits, for the most part. Leaders heal their friends and grant bonuses. Controllers dish out status effects. Strikers deal damage. They are fairly similar, though KM makes a good point that the last two roles are a bit more varied in their approach.

That being said, there are pretty big variances there, as well. A Paladin is a very different defender from a fighter - I see it every monday when we game. We have a dragonborn paladin and a minotaur fighter. The minotaur often pins down one big guy by himself or pairs up with a rogue, taking the hits while the rogue deals out the damage... or he'll go for the super mobile guy and keep him pinned down in melee combat. The Dragonborn, meanwhile, sticks with his allies, and marks an enemy while using powers that improve upon his allies' defences, or makes an area a better combat zone. So, the dragonborn becomes a solid front line/centre of a shield wall, while the minotaur is much more of a skirmisher.

My biggest issue with 4e is not homogeneity. I can live with it, because I can create the characters I envision in my head (especially now that I can use hybrid rules!). And the fact that things are homogenous make it easier to create adventures and encounters, which is a HUGE plus.

My big problem with 4e is the economic system, the focus on gamism as opposed to simulation, treasure packets, and all that fun stuff. Luckily, when DARK SUN comes along, I'm going through the trouble to get rid of all of that. Then 4e will be almost perfect.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I am not sure if I am stretching the analogy to far, but I also wonder if this is not also an issue wether people actually play the game regularly or not. If you play it a lot, you see all the tiny differences, all the variety and tactical choices.
But if you don't play the game, or don't play it often, you miss most of the details. You see the "broad picture".

Of course, now people will say that I only count opinions of people that play the game a lot. And they might be right. In the end, 4E is a game meant to be played. It is designed for that purpose primarily, with every design element seeming to facilitate the actual gameplay. All that comes at the cost of the stuff you do aside from the game table.

We have a big thread on "story-telling is part of roleplaying games or not", some say it is something else, some say it is part of it. (I agree with the latter). Maybe another question is whether we count the "world-building", "book-reading" or "character-building" also as part of roleplaying or not?

It is probably all a part of the RPG experience, but not every part is equally appealed to with a game, and it might not always be possible, either.

 

[Primal]

There's also something else that enhances the image of homogeneity in 4E... all the powers are basically just X*[W] or X*Y [insert damage type here] and some "rider" effect (slide, push, grant +W to Z, daze, etcetera). Alternatively, the "rider" effect is replaced by just a bigger pool of damage dice. Furthermore, most Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies I've seen seem to have variations of the same ability, e.g. "When you use an Action Point, you...". They may play differently, but on paper it looks to me like they're just alternate class features for the same class.

 

[Umbran]

Every other RPG I've played or read is like pure homogeneous in terms of game-play mechanics compared to D&D...

Mayhaps you and I are playing different games, then.

White Wolf games? In the original Word of Darkness games, there is some of the homogenity of structure at generation, but it is not maintained in the long term by a point-buy system, and the mechanical differences between characters at generation really don't leave one with a feel that all are the same.

Shadowrun? Certainly not! There's three or four rather different rulesets wandering around in there. Samurai are not deckers, and neither of those are mages.

I have seen no superhero system that comes anywhere near 4e's structures.

Even in something like GURPS Basic Set, where all characters are generated the same way, the breadth of choices means you aren't homogeneous.

 

[Reigan]

I find these complaints too generalised too understand where they are coming from.

If someone could post something along the lines "I play a fighter on a Tuesday and a wizard on a Thursday and I find they play the same because..." and be more specific I think it would help.

I'm probably wrong, but it just feels like a lot of people complaining are not actually playing 4e and are basing their opinions on having read the rulebooks which can easily create an impression of sameness.