Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="yarael" data-source="post: 4921951" data-attributes="member: 26355">Admittedly I did not get past page 3 in the how to remove homogeneity from 4E thread, so I don't know if this ever got picked up on.&nbsp; Also, I am a 4E fan who never understood what all this talk of homogeneity was about.&nbsp; But this post helped me understand far better, and several posts after by the &quot;other side&quot; helped me understand how folks where talking past each other.I will highlight the first moment of clarity for me.&quot;You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go.&quot;I read that, and thought, &quot;THAT's an argument that 4E is homogeneous?!?&nbsp; Gosh! look at all the choices!&nbsp; I get to choose 2 out of 5 powers, 1 out of a different group of 8 or more powers, yet another 1 out of any more powers.&nbsp; I get 4 skills to choose from!&nbsp; I get at least 1 feat choice, a race choice with real mechanical relevance.&nbsp;&nbsp; Choices from many different weapons with their own stat choices and feat progressions! Compare that to a 3X fighter.&nbsp; If I'm lucky I get 3 feat choices, 3 skill choices, a much more diminished relevance for weapons, and a race choice that lets me get that 3rd feat.&quot;As I continued to read Remathilis's great post it started to crystallize what this homogeneity was that he was talking about.&nbsp; He wasn't talking about the lack of variety of choices you get to make, but the lack of variety of the types of choices you get to make.&nbsp; Later posts by &quot;anti-homogeneity&quot; folks helped me understand why this idea is hard to internalize.&nbsp; We all look and say, gosh, there are so many choices to make, that nothing feels the same.&nbsp; Some typical (but not actual) quotes.&quot;Each class plays differently&quot;&quot;There are a huge variety of tactical choices&quot;&quot;Obviously you have never played, as it plays differently&quot;&quot;Each level has different choices to make&quot;While the &quot;homogeneity&quot; might say something along the lines of...&quot;Each class is built the same&quot;&quot;Every round I am doing the same thing&quot;&quot;Each class plays the same&quot;&quot;Each level has the same choices to make&quot;&quot;Each level has different choices to make&quot; vs &quot;Each level has the same choices to make&quot; gets to the root of the talking past each other part.An analogy.&nbsp; Say I am a carpenter.&nbsp; I love wood, different grains, species, color, warmth.&nbsp; I design and build a kitchen/dining room.&nbsp; I use cherry for the cabinets of the main part.&nbsp; I use maple for my island.&nbsp; I use a hard oak sealed for my countertops.&nbsp; I have a lovely chestnut brown bamboo for my flooring.&nbsp; I have a pine wainscoting that accepts a wonderful stain.&nbsp; 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, &quot;Wow, that's a lot of wood!&nbsp; This kitchen could have used some color!&quot;One person revels in the details of what they are doing.&nbsp; In 4E they may love the tactical nature of combat, the battle for position.&nbsp; They like predetermining their powers, paragon paths and feats, trying best to align them together in a cohesive whole.&nbsp; They see the clear distinction between the 7th level encounter powers, and send considerable time deciding which best works, either from a tactical standpoint or thematically.&nbsp; The other likes the &quot;big&quot; choices to matter.&nbsp; They want their wizard to do things differently, mechanically, from their fighter.&nbsp; They want the visceral around the table play experience to &quot;feel&quot; different.&nbsp; Roll different dice, use different rules, keep track of resources differently.&nbsp; They still revel in the different choices, but the choices they make are less concerned with detail, and more about the &quot;big picture&quot; idea they have in their head.(of course insert a better description of the latter player in here, as I am clearly not one of them.&nbsp; I struggled mightily with that description. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )I guess, looking back, 3.X clearly supported both kinds of player.&nbsp; There were certainly enough fiddly choices to made to satisfy detail guy.&nbsp; And there were enough mechanical differences that big picture guy was happy.&nbsp; 4E is probably more appealing to detail guy because he doesn't have to master many different systems to revel in the interweaving of complexity he likes.&nbsp; 4E is certainly less satisfying to big picture guy, cause there is only one system to dip into.&nbsp; One choice in comparison to all the myriad of choices detail guy sees.Another way to put it.&nbsp; In 3.X you said, &quot;I am playing a Fighter&quot; and already choices had been made for you.&nbsp; You have an extra feat and no spells.&nbsp; That choice mattered.&nbsp; In 4E you say, &quot;I am playing a Fighter&quot; and you still have exactly the same choices ahead of you as if you were playing a wizard.&nbsp; You still have a class feature, the same number of at wills, encounter powers, etc... Your initial choice doesn't matter, in that you still have the same types of choices to make, even if your option for those choices are different.At least that is what I have taken away from the discussion...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="yarael, post: 4921951, member: 26355"] Admittedly I did not get past page 3 in the how to remove homogeneity from 4E thread, so I don't know if this ever got picked up on. Also, I am a 4E fan who never understood what all this talk of homogeneity was about. But this post helped me understand far better, and several posts after by the "other side" helped me understand how folks where talking past each other. I will highlight the first moment of clarity for me. "You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go." I read that, and thought, "THAT's an argument that 4E is homogeneous?!? Gosh! look at all the choices! I get to choose 2 out of 5 powers, 1 out of a different group of 8 or more powers, yet another 1 out of any more powers. I get 4 skills to choose from! I get at least 1 feat choice, a race choice with real mechanical relevance. Choices from many different weapons with their own stat choices and feat progressions! Compare that to a 3X fighter. If I'm lucky I get 3 feat choices, 3 skill choices, a much more diminished relevance for weapons, and a race choice that lets me get that 3rd feat." As I continued to read Remathilis's great post it started to crystallize what this homogeneity was that he was talking about. He wasn't talking about the lack of [I]variety[/I] of choices you get to make, but the lack of variety of the [I]types[/I] of choices you get to make. Later posts by "anti-homogeneity" folks helped me understand why this idea is hard to internalize. We all look and say, gosh, there are so many choices to make, that nothing feels the same. Some typical (but not actual) quotes. "Each class plays differently" "There are a huge variety of tactical choices" "Obviously you have never played, as it plays differently" "Each level has different choices to make" While the "homogeneity" might say something along the lines of... "Each class is built the same" "Every round I am doing the same thing" "Each class plays the same" "Each level has the same choices to make" "Each level has different choices to make" vs "Each level has the same choices to make" gets to the root of the talking past each other part. 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!" One person revels in the details of what they are doing. In 4E they may love the tactical nature of combat, the battle for position. They like predetermining their powers, paragon paths and feats, trying best to align them together in a cohesive whole. They see the clear distinction between the 7th level encounter powers, and send considerable time deciding which best works, either from a tactical standpoint or thematically. The other likes the "big" choices to matter. They want their wizard to do things differently, mechanically, from their fighter. They want the visceral around the table play experience to "feel" different. Roll different dice, use different rules, keep track of resources differently. They still revel in the different choices, but the choices they make are less concerned with detail, and more about the "big picture" idea they have in their head. (of course insert a better description of the latter player in here, as I am clearly not one of them. I struggled mightily with that description. :) ) I guess, looking back, 3.X clearly supported both kinds of player. There were certainly enough fiddly choices to made to satisfy detail guy. And there were enough mechanical differences that big picture guy was happy. 4E is probably more appealing to detail guy because he doesn't have to master many different systems to revel in the interweaving of complexity he likes. 4E is certainly less satisfying to big picture guy, cause there is only one system to dip into. One choice in comparison to all the myriad of choices detail guy sees. Another way to put it. In 3.X you said, "I am playing a Fighter" and already choices had been made for you. You have an extra feat and no spells. That choice [I]mattered[/I]. In 4E you say, "I am playing a Fighter" and you still have exactly the same choices ahead of you as if you were playing a wizard. You still have a class feature, the same number of at wills, encounter powers, etc... Your initial choice doesn't [I]matter[/I], in that you still have the same types of choices to make, even if your option for those choices are different. At least that is what I have taken away from the discussion... [/QUOTE]

Verification