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

[Nifft]

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.

Exalted characters don't much feel the same either, thanks to their "power" system.

IMHO what stinks is: as the GM, the antagonists all use different sub-systems. Ugh. I wish there were more homogeneity behind the screen.

Cheers, -- N

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

Then I'm afraid you're incapable of understanding a fairly common experience in 4e. Either it's not broad enough yet, or there's just some fundamental disconnect in you. Which is fine, it's not ruining your games, so keep on truckin', soldier. Just accept that you don't understand where people who make the argument are coming from.

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

That's not too bad, either, though I don't know from comic books that well.

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".

Since I play nearly every week, I don't think that's the difference, either. It's not lack of experience with the system -- I'm not ignorant of the subtle differences I just think they're just that: subtle. Too subtle for me to get a different play experience out of the game.

I think this is mostly intentional: WotC wanted to deliver one solid play experience, to cull accidental suck and dominating player abilities, and this is the result: everything is the same because anything that stands out might lead to imbalance.

In the end, as a swordmage, I solve all my problems broadly the same way that a fighter does. It looks a little different when I do it, I do it in a slightly different way, but I still do the same thing. And, in the end, it's not all that different from how a cleric or a wizard or a rogue solves their problems, either. 3,000 variations on "kill things and have a secondary effect"....ech...not so different.

Some of this is unavoidable and even desirable, but 4e certainly has some wiggle room. The monk and the psion both show a loosening of the bonds, though it's mild and limited. There can be more.

 

[Ariosto]

If you play it a lot, you see all the tiny differences, all the variety and tactical choices.

One reason I don't play it a lot is that I see the differences as tiny, the variety and tactical choices as uninteresting.

No set of rules can have as much diversity as the range of situations in a D&D-style fantasy RPG. So, devoting more time and energy to rules tends by itself toward relative homogeneity. Devoting a lot of time and energy to manipulating relatively few rules with similar effects tends further. (Such relative measures as "a lot", "few" and "similar" are naturally pretty subjective.)

The wizard's four cantrips are marvelous, but the other 14 1st-level spells are just typical attack powers. Level 2 is all "utilities", 3 and 5 all attacks. That 2:1 ratio of attack levels to utility levels continues, and is about the same for other classes. The utilities themselves are often just more combat factors.

Yes, there are also rituals. My problem is that the combat powers seem to me generally pretty dull, and that's where the focus is.

Tossing a d20 to "hit" and a d6 (or whatever) for "damage" is not much more exciting in itself. The key is that it doesn't take half an hour or more to resolve a fight. When you're getting through 4 or more situations per hour, then that aspect is less homogeneous.

Even 3e was a bit sluggish for my taste, but there at least the idea was still to start with interesting situations and translate them into game terms. With 4e, it seems to me that everything is stereotyped and the exercise is in trying to find something interesting to do within those constraints.

 

[Nifft]

In the end, as a swordmage, I solve all my problems broadly the same way that a fighter does. It looks a little different when I do it, I do it in a slightly different way, but I still do the same thing. And, in the end, it's not all that different from how a cleric or a wizard or a rogue solves their problems, either. 3,000 variations on "kill things and have a secondary effect"....ech...not so different.

I found them not all that similar.

A Fighter stands in front of an Elite and says: "You ain't leaving until one of us is dead."

A Swordmage Marks an Elite and then goes somewhere else: "Ha ha, you're screwed, I'll be over here killing your minions."

Cheers, -- N

 

[BryonD]

Way back in the very first week after 4E was announced, I found myself in several debates regarding whether the 4E skill system should look like the Saga skill system. I was strongly opposed (and at the time naively certain WotC would never do such).

A frequently cited example of why this system was needed was the wall obstacle. In 3E a rogue can *very easily* climb a wall that a typical wizard will find challenging. It was explained to me that this was a terrible break down in the game because either the wall was a challenge to the rogue and thus hopelessly impossible for the wizard, or it was possible for the wizard and made the rogue's skill at climbing pointless.

Now climbing walls is certainly not the key function of a good RPG. But it was a simple example of how the diversity in builds could be a problem. This could apply to just about any skill. And also applied, though generally not to the same extreme, to saves and attacks/AC.

To me, this is a beautiful thing.

First and foremost because these are the archetypes I want. The rogue can climb walls and the wizard can't. The wizard can learn spider climb if he wants to. Or you can build a wizard who *can* climb as well as a rogue if you are willing to focus on that. But, in the default situation, the rogue is a hell of a lot better at climbing.

Second, this is fun at the table. When they get to the wall that is a moderate challenge for the wizard, letting the rogue not even roll is a very brief nod to the rogue player. Thirty real world seconds later the game has moved on, but the rogue player still has that little vicarious buzz of coolness from being told not to even bother. Big deal? No. Fun? Yeah.
When they get to the wall the wizard cannot climb, then it is a real challenge. The solution may be a simple as burning a spider climb. Ok, no big deal. But it may be more complicated. But it is a challenge for the players to creatively solve rather than being a predestined "math works" just gotta roll high enough obstacle.

Extrapolate that to hundreds or thousands of aspects of every encounter and you get how I see it.

4E is balanced. I will READILY agree that 4E is better balanced than 3E.
3E was built as a system to model characters. And then it was made as balanced as possible.

The mantra we heard over and over from Mearls was "the math works". 4E was built to be very well balanced and then it was made to model characters as best as possible. Does that mean it fails at modeling fantasy archetypes? No. Not at all. It does a good job of it. I'd even say it does a better job of modeling fantasy characters than 3E does of being balanced across the board.
But that balance brings with it a lot of homogeneity. The climb ability of the rogue and wizard are not nearly as diverse as they are in 3E. And so on for hundreds or thousands of other little things.

And that is critically important to me.

3E = Awesome at character building and good at balance.
4E = Awesome at balance and good+ at character building.
If everything was equal, then 4E wins.
And if what is really important to you is a tactical combat mini game, then 4E wins in a blowout. (And you can expand this to include non-combat mechanical resolution of conflict) This is why a fair number of people say that 4E feels too much like a mini game to them.

But everything is not equal. If creating a character you want to get into the skin of is the most important thing, then 3E wins. Because character building and balance are not equal. Balance is important. It must be good. And while not up to 4E, 3E is still easily “good” in this column for me. But balance is an order of magnitude less important than character building. Character building is a must have deal breaker.

And for an RPG it is all about the modeling of the character that the mechanics provides. See my sig. RP is not between the covers of a book. You can play a 100 point GURPS game and say that your character is Superman. And you can roleplay superman to your hearts content. A 100 point GURPS character does not model superman, so the net result is a poor overall experience, no matter how great you role play. That is an absurd extreme example, but it illustrates the point and is on the correct axis.

If
3E = Awesome at character building and good at balance = A and
4E = Awesome at balance and good+ at character building = B.
Then A >> B.

So I pretty much agree with the wood analogy.
You’ve got all kinds of wood. You have very diverse wood. Your balsa is vastly different than your pine, oak, and cherry.
But I want balsa, pine, oak, and cherry and I also want iron and clay and steel and glass and silver and paper. And it is ok with me if paper needs to be really careful. He is paper, it is part of his character. Being 12th level does not give him the same +6 as steel. And if you tell me that paper needs to at least have a fair chance at doing anything steel can do, then I will tell you that you have made paper and steel too homogeneous.

 

[Jasperak]

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to BryonD again.

 

[BryonD]

But if you don't play the game, or don't play it often, you miss most of the details.

Your scenario requires the presumption that an alternate opinion must result from "missing" something.

What if they are not missing anything and still come to a different conclusion? (much less "most" of something)

 

[yarael]

Having taken a day to really consider this, I think I have pegged it for myself. My room analogy, was, in retrospect, not the best constructed analogy, so I
will try again....

In 4E, you are told to go design a living room. You can choose wood, stone, brick, or plaster. Regardless of that choice, you still have to pick a choice for the walls, ceiling, floor, and a furniture grouping. Your choices in this regard are limited based on the material you choose. You cannot used the furniture from the wood group in your living room if you choose stone as your material.

In 3.X, you are told to design a room. You must first decide what room you wish to design. You have the choice of kitchen, bathroom, living room, and closet. Based upon that choice your, you will still need to choose something for the ceiling, walls, and flooring. Some of that may be the same as one of the other rooms. But kitchen designers get to choose amongst appliances, which the other folks don't get to choose. They also must choose a countertop, a back splash, and a sink. The living room design just a furniture suite to choose. The quantity of choices the kitchen designer gets to make is different then the living room guy, much less the closet guy.

In the first example, the initial choice is significant because it limits the palette you can choose from. But the second example shows a different kind of siginificance. It may not limit your palette at all, but the quantity of choices is different.

To 4E the 3.X character creation choices for a moment, making it somewhat abstract. A 3.X fighter gets to choose a feat. That is his class feature at first level. Let's say that feat is roughly equivalent to an At-Will Power (power attack, expertise, two weapon fighting, whatever, most allowed the fighter to alter his basic attack into something another character couldn't do with his basic attack). Now let's look at the wizard. His first level class features where choose 4 spells, choose some cantrips, and choose a familiar. So we will say he gets to choose 4 Daily Attack powers, 6(?) Daily Utility Powers, and a Class Feature. Obviously the difference between those two choices is quite significant.

Now to a detail guy like me, I look at that dichotomy and I hated it. Building a fighter was boring. By choosing that option, the game was less fun. But to another kind of guy, he looks at that and sees that his choice Matters, with a capital M. In 4E I look at all the options each class has, and no matter which I class I choose, I still have roughly, if not exactly, the same amount of choices to make. Cool. And with in each choice I see a myriad of different choices, each one making my character unique. But a Big Picture guy (maybe there is a better descriptor) looks at each of the choices as minor variations on a theme. They all heal X, damage Y, to status effect Z. Little in the choices he sees offer a clear dichotomy, a completely different choice. If he chooses Fighter, the quantity and types of choices will be exactly the same as for a Wizard. There is nothing unique there.

I use character creation in my examples because I think it is easier to see this difference. But I my no means mean that it is limited to character creation. I can now see it in other areas too.

Take combat. Here the choices for any character in 4E.

Do I need/want to use my move action to improve my tactical situation?
Do I need/want to use my minor action to do my Role?
Do I need/want to spend my Standard action expend a Daily Resource, damage something, and utilize an interesting rider?
If not, which of my encounter/at-will powers to damage something and decide amongst which of my rider effects will garner me and/or my allies the best tactical situation.

There is a lot of options available in each of those choices. For detail guy this plethora (yes, I even know what a plethora is) of choices represents the opposite of hegemony.

Take 3.X. Here are some examples of choices...

Do I want/need to move to improve my tactical situation?
Do I want/need to take a 5' step to improve my tactical situation?
I am Fighter, I will pretend to consider other tactical choices, and then hit the monster several times, pausing between each to see if he goes down so I can move, and/or hit another monster.
I am a Cleric. Do I use my standard action expend a Daily resource to heal someone? Buff me or someone else? Cast a damage spell? Or do I save my Daily resources, and just hit something with my weapon.
I am a Wizard. Do I use my standard action to expend a Daily resource and damage something? Buff myself or someone else? Figure out some creative use for one of my Utility spells? Or not expend a daily Resource and pretend to try to hit something with a weapon? Use another move action to hide/get away?

Each of those have different quantity of choices, as well as different types of choices. To the Big Picture guy, his original character class choice Means something.

(Now there is still some of that in 4E, which the original quote I posted acknowledged, but sometimes is not. The choice of Role -not Class- has a somewhat similar effect on combat. But the order of magnitude is less then the Class choice in 3.X)

So to sum up. Detail guy looks at 4E and sees significance in his choices because it limits his options. He sees variety do the sheer number of choices he gets to make, as well as the plethora of options available for each choice.

Big Picture guy looks a 4E and sees no significance in his choices, because they do not affect the quantity and types of choices he makes. He sees homogeneity in all his choices because none of them have the magnitude of significance upon later choices in character creation or game play that 3.X did.

 

[Ariosto]

It should be pretty rare that anyone adventuring literally has to climb a wall as opposed, say, to climbing a knotted rope (DC 5 in 3.5, without a wall against which to brace or DC 0 with one).

 

[Reigan]

3e was an amazing character generating system with a lousy set of rpg rules tacked on the end. People wanted change because the rules let them down all the time. 3e had some serious flaws that shortened its lifespan as it couldn't sustain sales without bloating the system beyond playability.

Don't forget, earlier editions played just fine without hardly any choice at all.

4e has plenty of choices, you just have to dress them up with your own flavour and fluff. Thats what needs to be different, not the mechanics. A little imagination goes along way.