Removing homogenity from 4e

[Ktulu]

I've played a wizard, rogue, avenger, fighter, and paladin thus far.

I see no sameness in the classes. Each plays out distinctly different, does different things, uses different styles, weapons, and effects.

I agree with all the above posters that the game is not homogeneous if you look beyond the fact that they all get at-will, encounter, and daily powers. No more the same than in 2e when they all got hit points, and used Thac0.

 

[BryonD]

If you play a fighter, than a wizard and still think the classes are the same, you're probably not paying attention.

Oh no, I agree completely. The fighter and the wizard play quite differently.

I also think that the numbers 7 and 12 are very different. But when I'm used to comparing 1 and 100, the space between 7 and 12 seems much smaller.

Every character using the same system for their abilities doesn't do the slightest thing to discourage versatility or a varied play experience. Ask a Warmachine player about how different warcasters are, and then bring up that they all must be similar because they use the same rules. Then watch him laugh at you.

I agree with this. But 4E goes beyond the same system.

 

[BryonD]

*cough* Psion or Monk *cough*

Those appear to be decent efforts to undo the problem. But there is such vastly superior starting points out there that it doesn't matter.

 

[AngryMojo]

I agree with this. But 4E goes beyond the same system.

This is something I'll have to disagree with you, unless I'm not understanding your statements. The powers and abilities of every class are extremely different, to the point that you can look at the effects of two given powers and have a really good idea as to what class they belong to without it being stated. I really would like to know what you mean when you say the system is homogenous though. It seems that most posters think you mean "every class plays the same," although this is obviously not the case.

 

[Dannager]

Perhaps, if you wish to actually contribute to a solution oriented discussion, you will quit offering shallow preconceptions of your own regarding other people's experience with the game you enjoy. Because, you are wrong. Deeply wrong.

The OP pretty clearly implied that 4th Edition was homogeneous and lacked complexity, which (apparently) everyone here but you and the OP disagrees with.

Our point is that though all characters are rooted in the same system, each of them plays in a very distinct manner which strikes a nice balance between depth of characterization and ease of learning and play.

 

[AllisterH]

I personally never really saw a difference in play between a barbarian, fighter and a ranger in 3e (or 2e for that matter).

4e has really been able to make them feel different in play rather than just look different on paper.

 

[Dannager]

I agree with this. But 4E goes beyond the same system.

No, I really don't think it does.

 

[BryonD]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a bit of clarification on this. In what way to you see 4e's mechanics as being homogeneous, and how is this a bad thing?

Sorry, but I've been through this easily a hundred times in the past two years.

There are people who can see it and people who can't. But recycling the argument all over again isn't going to be productive.

I was stupid and starting responding here because I was called out in the OP.
I should not have.

I am truly glad that 4E provides a great, fun experience for many people.

There are also a great many people who find it homogeneous and underwhelming.

The other thread was not about how to fix 4E. It was about how to make a product that would attract people who are no longer sending cash WotC's way. I answered that question. I'm not interested in fixing 4E. I'm happy with my games and I'm going that direction.

If *you* want to bring more people into the game you love, you may want to consider an open-minded assessment of what some people do find wrong with it. But you have no obligation there.

 

[Mort_Q]

nevermind.

 

[AngryMojo]

If *you* want to bring more people into the game you love, you may want to consider an open-minded assessment of what some people do find wrong with it. But you have no obligation there.

I don't understand how I've been anything but open minded. I really do want to know where the core of the homogeneous argument comes from, and I've yet to hear an argument that forms an actual argument and isn't just a buzzword. I haven't seen your arguments, and I'd like to have an actual discussion on the matter. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what you mean, and I'd like it cleared up. I'm asking for a simple definition, not a dissertation on RPG design. Believe me, I've got a very open mind about gaming as a whole, and pidgeonhole myself to a specific game or system. There are a lot of asinine arguments on both ends of the edition war, and they're difficult to filter out at times. I'll never claim 4e is perfect, and I'll be the first one to say there are things I'd do differently, but I still play the game and don't see it as being this often derided, childish MMO boardgame that it's claimed to be.

I like hearing opposing statements, as I may learn something from them, or at least see a perspective that I may not on my own.