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

[catastrophic]

MarkB, I can't imagine your DM is giving you as much variety as you think. The monster roles are extremly versatile, especially if you use them in different ways. I've been running a 4e game for over a year and while there have certainly been samey' fights, I find that it's easy enough to get out of the rut if you're willing to put thought into encounter design. It's still a lot better than the kind of 'options' 3e gave me.

Additionally, if everyone is slogging away with at-wills it's a good sign that the fights are going too long- and that's one of the keys to making good 4e fights. 4e fights should not go too many rounds, or they end up being at-will slogfests.

And there's certainly some weakpoints in 4e monster design- solos are the obvious example. I would go so far as to say that you should not bother using most MM1 solos at all, and that solos should not be used in a vaccum- even more than other fights, it's important to bolster a solo with terrain, special events, even light support like minions or a single 'support' monster like a lurker or controller.

That said, I think you're sounding like a pretty typical case of burnout, and the normal sort of advice applies, so playing a different system or type of game is probably a good idea! It might also be a good idea to take a break from gaming, maybe even do something different with your group.

A lot of people who get burnt out after playing a lot or for a long time, find that taking a break or changing systems can make a world of difference, but either way throttling back a bit is often a really positive step.

Seriously, it needs to be a bannable offense to say "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH <edition>, YOU'RE ALL JUST IRRATIONAL HATERS.

Actually, In all seriousness, <edition> hater really SHOULD be a bannable offense for the connotations it has.

Because that's what fosters good communication and discussion. Telling the other side that they're always wrong, and that your game is 100% flawless.

Behead those who insult <edition>, eh?

How predictable. I didn't say anything of the sort.

But there's nothing constructive about pretending an argument is valid when it's not. I understand that you'd rather everyone spend pages and pages bowing and scraping to every fabricated criticism of 4e, but that's not going to make for good, useful discussion.

 

[Tallifer]

And every single combat, we're facing the same small variety of enemies. Oh, not that we fight the same critters all the time - but that's practically irrelevant. In 4e, the monster roles are far more powerful determinants of what sort of challenge you'll face than their species.

In 3.xe, you'd have a huge variety of creature types - dragons, goblins, pixies, giants, demons, zombies, etc. - each with a few variants of build and advancement.

In 4e, however, you get just a handful of types - solo, elite, controller, skirmisher, solider, lurker, minion - each of which has dozens of tiny variants, in the form of their actual species.

Ultimately, combat does boil down to a set of practised choices in response to a very limited set of opponent roles, with the actual opposing creature race in question having only a limited impact on the tactical landscape.

I have no idea what game you are describing here, because there are dragons, goblins, pixies, giants, demons and zombies in 4th edition. (hmm ... maybe no pixies, but I simply created one anyways for my forest adventure.)

Furthermore, the special abilities of monsters make a huge difference in the flavour of a battle.

Insubstantiality or resistance make for stubborn foes.

Grabbing (and subsequent damage bonuses) or swallowing whole.

Draining healing surges is weaker than draining levels, but it still throws a wrench in the works.

Attacks that deny the use of daily powers. Attacks that petrify. That turn you into a werewolf. That make you flee in the wrong direction. Domination.

Auras of poison against you, or healing for the monsters.

And the most devilish yet: a creature that teleports away every time he is successfully hit.

And so far our party was successfully duped on two different occasions, by shapechanged succubus and then by a shapechanged hag. (Doh!)

 

[Derren]

How predictable. I didn't say anything of the sort.

Right....

You don't have a minority opinion, it's just a minority opinion on threads where people endlessly complain about 4e and make up reasons to criticise it because they don't want to admit that their hostility to it isn't really based on 4e at all, but rather their attachement to 3e and their anger at it no longer being pre-eminent.

I don't doubt that some people have genuine preference issues, whereby 3e fits them better than 4e. But that's not what happens most often. What happens most often is that people make what are clearly highly contrived criticisms, and other people defend these criticisms and give them far more credit than they deserve.

4e is not bad at roleplaying, 4e is not homogenous, 4e does not violate the monomyth, these criticisms are caused by people who are reaching for excuses rather than admitting that it's just not their thing.

These criticisms are usually not expressing genuine preference, they are made by people who are deliberatly muddying and confusing the discussion of design and preference in order to rationalise their nerd rage. And then there's a bunch of people encouraging that, thinking they're beign reasonable, but actually often making it impossible to discuss real issues.

I'm not saying some people aren't expressing genuine preferences, but this constant tug of war is not useful for anyone, it's mostly just a way for people to try and legitimise their hostility to 4e. You want to be hostile to 4e, go ahead, but don't pretend it's because the lack of craft skills make it impossible to roleplay.

It would be great to talk about some of the real contrasts and preference issues, but that won't be possible until people recognise that a lot of the 4e haters are just blowing hot air. Trying to work through all these wierd criticisms isn't going to improve the discussion, it's going to make it worse, more confusing, more frustrating, and ultimatly much more toxic.

I think this is a perfect example of that. We can't talk about real variety or specialisation, because people insist that 'variety' be defined as 'character sheets for different classes look different'.

I see that the Avengers are alive and well.

 

[catastrophic]

The thing is, it would be great to talk about combat and 4e because I do think there are issues with it, but the problem is that the real issues have very little to do with the issues people make up when they're ranting.

The same goes for the broader role of combat in 4e: I do suspect that combat is being over-represented in 4e, but it's certainly not due to most of the dodgy reasons people present, especially since most of the people criticising it don't even play and many of them clearly haven't even read the rules. While people are forced to endlessly debate and indulge the fake issues, the real issues are neglected and distorted.

I'm not down on markb here, obviously he's not happy with his 4e gaming, but I really doubt the problem is 4e homogeneity. I think he's probably seen a LOT of 4e fights in a relativly small time, and his DMs are not progressing and mastering the making of encounters well enough to make them distinctive enough for him after so much gaming.

In 4e it can be kind of easy as a DM to phone in a fight- in no small part because, by default, fights are much more manageable and entertaining. It is really easy in 4e, early on, to toss down a bunch of monsters and have a decently fun fight which goes well beyond a simple slog through walking bags of hit points. The same cannot be said for 3e, no matter what it's proponents may claim.

But over time that can result in a DM becoming complacent, and repeating the same template too much- toss in a couple of brutes and a soldier, hang a lurker around the back, sprinkle on minions, and serve. That's fine to a point, but I think more DMs should push forward a bit more, and make more use of terrain and other special conditions.

They also need to be more aware of the problems the system may have. Soldiers can be very frustrating to some players, and if there's always a solider up front in your encounters, that frustration can build over time. As noted solos can often go into 'overtime' and early solos tend to be too tough, and not daangerous enough- they last too long and don't really do much while they're there.

Minions are often neglected, and many dms apparently don't use them at all, but they also need to be managed, and used in moderation- if every fight has a minion horde, it's going to get old, fast.

There's a lot of good discussion that can be had about fourth edition and D&d in general, when people aren't distracted by dodgy issues invented to stir up the edition war.

 

[catastrophic]

Right....
I see that the Avengers are alive and well.

Again, predictable.
I didn't say what he claimed, and quoting my post doesn't change that.
I never said 4e was flawless or anything similar, in fact the post you were replying to mentioned one of the flaws in 4e.

 

[Derren]

Again, predictable.
I didn't say what he claimed, and quoting my post doesn't change that.
I never said 4e was flawless or anything similar, in fact the post you were replying to mentioned one of the flaws in 4e.

Except that Cirno didn't talk only about saying that your edition is flawless, but about dismissing any criticism of that edition as made up and flat out wrong. And your post is full of that.

And its interesting that you talk about edition wars, especially as there wasn't one until you stated to post. dontmazemebro came close, but your posts sparked it in the end.

 

[catastrophic]

I'm not going to cop the blame for calling this thread, and these arguments, what they so obviously are. It also doesn't surpise me that you mark out somebody else as an 'edition warrior' because they too, refuse to give these criticisms more credit than they deserve.

Some of people make valid criticisms of 4e, but unfortunatly, other people who post a lot more make invalid contrived criticisms because they don't want to admit that their hostility to the new system doesn't really have anything to do with how it actually plays.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for implying my games sucked bad are my fault. They sucked bad because the rules sucked bad. /snip

I believe I said this to BryonD and I'll repeat it for you. Stating your opinion as fact does not make it so. The rules "sucked" for you. Other people may feel that the rules do not, in fact, suck.

Why not rephrase your criticism in such a way as to foster discussion rather than simply bombing absolutes? "I found that the ruleset got in the way for my group and we couldn't make it work, despite trying several different methods. I do find that Ruleset Y fits my tastes better, because of X, Y and Z."

Again, it helps things go so much more smoothly when we try to couch criticisms in terms that are not absolute.

 

[Jasperak]

You don't have a minority opinion, it's just a minority opinion on threads where people endlessly complain about 4e and make up reasons to criticise it because they don't want to admit that their hostility to it isn't really based on 4e at all, but rather their attachement to 3e and their anger at it no longer being pre-eminent.

I don't doubt that some people have genuine preference issues, whereby 3e fits them better than 4e. But that's not what happens most often. What happens most often is that people make what are clearly highly contrived criticisms, and other people defend these criticisms and give them far more credit than they deserve.

4e is not bad at roleplaying, 4e is not homogenous, 4e does not violate the monomyth, these criticisms are caused by people who are reaching for excuses rather than admitting that it's just not their thing.

These criticisms are usually not expressing genuine preference, they are made by people who are deliberatly muddying and confusing the discussion of design and preference in order to rationalise their nerd rage. And then there's a bunch of people encouraging that, thinking they're beign reasonable, but actually often making it impossible to discuss real issues.

I'm not saying some people aren't expressing genuine preferences, but this constant tug of war is not useful for anyone, it's mostly just a way for people to try and legitimise their hostility to 4e. You want to be hostile to 4e, go ahead, but don't pretend it's because the lack of craft skills make it impossible to roleplay.

It would be great to talk about some of the real contrasts and preference issues, but that won't be possible until people recognise that a lot of the 4e haters are just blowing hot air. Trying to work through all these wierd criticisms isn't going to improve the discussion, it's going to make it worse, more confusing, more frustrating, and ultimatly much more toxic.

I think this is a perfect example of that. We can't talk about real variety or specialisation, because people insist that 'variety' be defined as 'character sheets for different classes look different'.

Reported for ignorance in the face of a reasonable discussion on why some believe 4e is too homogeneous.

 

[BryonD]

The thing is, it would be great to talk about combat and 4e because I do think there are issues with it, but the problem is that the real issues have very little to do with the issues people make up when they're ranting.

There may be other issues that I have missed. But I pretty much limit myself to actual problems from my own personal preference.
You are welcome to stick your head in the sand and pretend that different points of view don't exist. It makes no difference to me.