Removing homogenity from 4e

[Nifft]

Choice of Weapon to Specialize in?

The problem isn't that all fighters feel alike; that's a given.

I actually feel like 4e's Fighters have some diversity. IMHO the Battlerager feels different enough from a shield-dude, and both are different from a glaive-spinning Polearm Gamble dude.

They all try to control the battle field, but they do it differently.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What game does BF stand for?


I think that's how the assassin is going to work. Maybe not spending a standard action chargin his lazer but the damage supposedly gets bigger the longer you "observe your target".

I was thinking more about "gathering Mana".

 

[Hussar]

What part of GURPS is equivalent to +1/2 level to all skills, saves and attacks?

To be honest, I don't have the books in front of me, so I cannot answer that. But, then again, what part of D&D is equivalent to having a 100 point buy (or whatever) character? The exact mechanics are not really the issue. The point is, every single GURPS character starts exactly the same. You have X points to create your character. No character has any niche protection and all characters can access exactly the same elements and use the same mechanics.

Who says there is one correct response? It depends on what the persons wants from their gaming experience.

Agreed

I strongly disagree that point buy systems in any way show this to be wrong.

However, I will agree that in a very general assessment it is true that mechanical diversity may be set aside without losing diversty.
It is not true that all systems with unified mechanics are overly homogeneous. It just happens to be true for 4E.

In your opinion of course. Like I said, I don't know. Is 4e "overly" homogenous? I'm not qualified to answer that. And, I highly suspect that you aren't either in anything more than a "for me" sense.

But, feel free to keep stating your feelings as facts.

---------------------------

Back to the OP. Ok, so you want to add mechanical complexity to 4e in terms of character options. First, I would suggest a couple of goals before you dive in:

1. Don't mess too much with existing mechanics. If you're going to rewrite the system, use another system.
2. Look for areas where you can add options where none, or at least few, currently exist.

Looking at 4e, I would think that a synthesis of the old 2e Kit system bolted on to the chargen system would work nicely. The 2e Kits were, by and large, non-combat oriented which means they won't strongly conflict with existing 4e mechanics. I would work to identify a number of archetypes and concepts that can be expressed through bonuses (or penalties) to skills, social interactions and perhaps some flavor balance in there as well.

For example, a Courtier kit might give you bonuses when dealing with certain people, and penalties when dealing with others. It could open up a couple of skills a class skills and perhaps close off another. I would probably have the kits scale by level, perhaps an encounter or daily level power every seven levels or so that is mostly non-combat. Perhaps at 7th level, the Courtier could use a Daily power that lets him succeed at a knowledge check related to the kingdom or something like that.

I'll admit, I suck at creating new mechanics. But, honestly, this would be the direction I would go.

 

[Nikosandros]

To be honest, I don't have the books in front of me, so I cannot answer that. But, then again, what part of D&D is equivalent to having a 100 point buy (or whatever) character? The exact mechanics are not really the issue. The point is, every single GURPS character starts exactly the same. You have X points to create your character. No character has any niche protection and all characters can access exactly the same elements and use the same mechanics.

I strongly disagree. Every GURPS characters starts as a blank slate (and even the starting point total is highly variable and campaign dependent). With those points you might build a crippled academician with no combat capability whatsoever, a martial art expert or the mind of a spoiled 5 years old downloaded into a spaceship... there is no sameness at all.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I strongly disagree. Every GURPS characters starts as a blank slate (and even the starting point total is highly variable and campaign dependent). With those points you might build a crippled academician with no combat capability whatsoever, a martial art expert or the mind of a spoiled 5 years old downloaded into a spaceship... there is no sameness at all.

They might have different skills, but they still use the same skill system. Both make similar "success rolls" despite that one is trying to remember Newton's Laws while the other is trying to punch a space monkey (not unlike the Wizard trying an Arcana check while the Fighter climbs a mountain with Athletics). There's no arcane reason that the academic should need to roll a 1d20 while the martial artist rolls 2d10 (it's all 3d6; at least according to my 3rd edition GURPS book) nor any reason to believe, that I can perceive, that it would improve the game in any sense.

Also, because it is point buy, you could create a crippled academician named Rob and I can make a mechanically identical character named Bob (just as in D&D you could easily make a pair of identical fighters regardless of edition, excluding for the potential randomization of dice rolls). You could, but I've yet to meet anyone who would.

The fact that you can make an academic and a warrior under GURPS is relatively meaningless as a comparison for homogenization because GURPS is generic (Generic Universal RolePlaying System). 4e, on the other hand, is a fantasy action-adventure roleplaying system that assumes some degree of combat as part of its game play.

The more generic the system, the less homogenized the characters need be. It is true but also somewhat misleading.

Complaining that 4e is homogenized because you can't make a combat incapable character is like complaining that Earthdawn is homogenized because you can't make a spaceman or that Traveler is homogenized because you can't make a character who can cast Limited Wish three times a day. Any game that limits itself to a specific genre and/or has a core mechanic will have homogenization, but I imagine we can all agree that allowing genre-inappropriate characters in a genre game is usually undesirable, and it has been shown that reliable core mechanics make for smoother and easier gameplay.

That a game works within the genre it sets for itself is good design, rather than an example of homogenization in any meaningful sense of the word. Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?

 

[Barastrondo]

Complaining that 4e is homogenized because you can't make a combat incapable character is like complaining that Earthdawn is homogenized because you can't make a spaceman or that Traveler is homogenized because you can't make a character who can cast Limited Wish three times a day. Any game that limits itself to a specific genre and/or has a core mechanic will have homogenization, but I imagine we can all agree that allowing genre-inappropriate characters in a genre game is usually undesirable, and it has been shown that reliable core mechanics make for smoother and easier gameplay.

Said nicely, and I agree. This was something that niggled at me about the reference of Champions encouraging people to all play "combat monsters" — Champions encourages you to play superheroes, and within that type you can have combat monsters and very combat-weak characters at different ends of the spectrum. They're just part of the superhero spectrum, so the combat-weak gadgeteer who can be stunned by one 11d6 punch might still be able to handle three dockworkers with pistols.

There's another factor besides more laserlike homing in on a "heroic adventure that would make a great summer blockbuster" substyle of fantasy.* They don't want to encourage characters who choose not participate in combat in exchange for being the only character who can participate in other areas of the game. As an outsider, I'd guess that the latter is far less to their tastes than the former, actually. You can still build a fairly ineffective character by the usual standards (consider a deva fighter who avoids dump stats and goes for 13-14 in everything, with feats sunk into picking up things like History). But they really don't want to have encounter-sized portions of the game where only one person is doing all the interaction, hence the "everyone participates" setup for skill challenges. 4e focuses heavily on the social unit, and good for it; there are certainly other games that have done so in the past, and they provide very rewarding experiences.

(Having worked on both forms of Werewolf, though, I am biased.)


*Think of it as the "we'd rather not have anybody be the Marlon Wayans" clause.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

While you can make a combat ineffective character in 4E, it really doesn't accomplish much. There really isn't anything to trade combat effectiveness for. Not even the illusion of something to trade it for. You're just making yourself weak for the sake of being weak.

 

[Mallus]

With those points you might build a crippled academician with no combat capability whatsoever, a martial art expert or the mind of a spoiled 5 years old downloaded into a spaceship... there is no sameness at all.

Also, not much utility (though I'm definitely stealing the 5 year-old ship mind as an adversary if I ever run an SF or supers game!).

That is to say, how do those two characters have a lasting series of adventures together?

 

[Betote]

I didn't give any example.

Yes, you did. You presented a situation in 3.x where a trap could only be dealt with by a Rogue. That meant almost exclusively (correct me if I'm wrong) a non-magical trap with a Search DC above 20.

Even in that case, the only time where "everyone except the Rogue sit on their hands" is the one single Search check. A d20 roll. That's not a lot of time. And once the trap is discovered, any character can attempt to do anything to bypass, disarm or destroy it.

By the way, being rude and then adding a smiley isn't sufficient protection around here. You may want to work on having a point without being rude. It'll make your stay more pleasant for everyone, emphatically including you.

I wasn't trying to be rude, and I don't think I was, but I apologize if I've hurt your feelings of beliefs in any way.

 

[Fanaelialae]

While you can make a combat ineffective character in 4E, it really doesn't accomplish much. There really isn't anything to trade combat effectiveness for. Not even the illusion of something to trade it for. You're just making yourself weak for the sake of being weak.

I think that not having illusions within the system is a good thing.

Take, for example, a 3.x fighter who trades strength (12) for intelligence (18) because the character concept is that of a brilliant warrior. Certainly, he qualifies for a few feats that he otherwise wouldn't, but none so potent that they make up for his lack of strength. He gets a few more skill points per level, but is still severely limited by the fighter's class skills, so he's now both sub-par fighter and skill monkey.

A good DM can still play to this fighter's strengths (of course) but it now requires quite a lot more tailoring (work) on the part of that DM. The player of this character may very well end up disillusioned because of the illusion that such a character would be functional (I saw this happen time and again under 3.x with new players, and even some experienced players, who simply couldn't grok the system very well).

4e avoids this by dispelling the illusions and removing the traps (of character creation). While it's certainly possible for a new player to create a sub-par character (impossible to completely eliminate without removing almost all choice), it isn't if he follows the advice in the PHB (which, while not always optimal, does create competent and functional PCs).

The point of a game is to have fun. Illusions only make the game fun for those with the skill to penetrate the mysteries of the character creation mini-game. I'm not saying that this is inherently a bad thing (as it can certainly increase enjoyment for those who have or can learn those creation skills) but it isn't necessarily well suited to D&D, which seems to be the RPG of choice for most newbies.