Removing homogenity from 4e

[Imaro]

True.

Kinda like how too much homogeneity is a common complaint about the current edition.

Hey, that's just a vocal minority...

 

[BryonD]

I imagine most people who are still playing 3.5E don't find balance a glaring issue. It was a glaring issue debated by many people who primarily played 3.5E during 3.5E's lifetime. I was there, as I'm the sort who is drawn to arguments. Back during my days on the WotC 3.5E forums, I was knee deep in all the balance discussions, where those who thought it was balanced ok were outnumbered by the combination of people unsatisfied with the balance and those who thought it was unbalanced but didn't worry about it so mucn.

Honestly, I was involved in a lot of arguments over balance. It was constant.

And stating that this made it a glaring issue would be a gross mischaracterization. First and foremost the debates were mostly regarding new material. BO9S would be one of many, but a significant, example. That si hugely different than a flaw built into the core of the system.

Second, the debates that did get more to the heart of the system would be most accurately described as between groups of people who loved the game but had differences of opinion about where the balance point should be.

You characterize it as if everyone in the debates was unsatisfied with the game it self. Part of the beauty of the game was how easy it was to make it be the game you wanted. But then, of course, everyone wanted to convince everyone else that their balance point was the one true point of perfection. So group A was upset with group B because group B loved playing 3E in a way completely different than the way Group A loved playing 3E. They may have been at each others throats over balance, but they both went home and loved playing 3E.

I'm not saying that there were not plenty of people who hated 3E. But the people who really had serious problems with 3E and yet were for some reason knee debate in balance debate after balance debate were a tiny fraction.

you are pointing at a bunch of people who argued over how best to love the game they loved and trying to present them as people who didn't like the game. And that is way off the mark.

It is funny, quite of few of people I used to argue with all the time are now my 3E holdout "allies".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hey, that's just a vocal minority...

So, maybe a common positive remark about 4E is how it unifies the characters abilities and balances them, without making actual play repetitive or boring.

It might be a common complaint. But it's a problem of selective perception - from all the complaints, this is the most common. But how many complaints are there actually? How many people actually like what is complained? How many even disagree with the complaint?

Of course, threads like these can also illustrate that to some extent - without actually providing us with real numbers of how many like or dislike aspects.

I think the "result" from this thread might be (just in general):
- There is homogenity in the system. (Hard to deny with a unified power framework, eh? )
- Some people perceive this homogenity strongly, do not experience the differences in play and dislike it.
- Some do not perceive this homogenity strongly, see the difference in play and like it.

So, the next questions would be: Can we find a way to help the first group without alienating the second group? Is it worthwile to even risk alienating people in the second group? Is it necessary to do so for capturing a (the) larger audience?

 

[BryonD]

So, maybe a common positive remark about 4E is how it unifies the characters abilities and balances them, without making actual play repetitive or boring.

I think that is true.

It might be a common complaint. But it's a problem of selective perception - from all the complaints, this is the most common. But how many complaints are there actually? How many people actually like what is complained? How many even disagree with the complaint?

I don't know that it is the "most" common. It is just one of *the* common.

But you said a few posts back that this board was reasonably representative. Well, according to polls here over 40% don't choose 4E even when allowed to pick every game they play. Is the board representative?

I think the "result" from this thread might be (just in general):
- There is homogenity in the system. (Hard to deny with a unified power framework, eh? )
- Some people perceive this homogenity strongly, do not experience the differences in play and dislike it.
- Some do not perceive this homogenity strongly, see the difference in play and like it.

More or less agreed. I'd say I DO experience the differences and dislike it, but your point remains

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, threads like these can also illustrate that to some extent - without actually providing us with real numbers of how many like or dislike aspects.

I think the "result" from this thread might be (just in general):
- There is homogeneity in the system. (Hard to deny with a unified power framework, eh? )
- Some people perceive this homogeneity strongly, do not experience the differences in play and dislike it.
- Some do not perceive this homogeneity strongly, see the difference in play and like it.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. This thread (and its cousin) seem to fall into three groups: 1.) See homogeneity & Like it. 2.) See homogeneity and Hate it. 3.) Don't see Homogeneity, whatchutalkinabout Wilis?

Group one and group two can agree to disagree. Group three cannot grasp the question.

So, the next questions would be: Can we find a way to help the first group without alienating the second group? Is it worthwhile to even risk alienating people in the second group? Is it necessary to do so for capturing a (the) larger audience?

See, at this point I think 4e is going to be what it is. I'm not sure they could make enough future supplements, stealth-errata, and outright "4.5" level changes to bring some disgruntled players back (some might, some never would).

I seriously think (no joke) 4e is going to be a "lost edition" like 2e; many old players leave it, but hundreds of new players join (I was one of those 2e newbies who never saw 1e until years later). However, in a dozen years (give or take) WotC designers (having learned the limits of their new system structure) will go back to "the math", fix the glaring errors, add a dash of nostalgic elements to lure back some of the lost players, and come out with a 5e that will be utterly amazing.

(I base this off of the fact this is the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering. They took a LOT of flack for 5th edition and the removal of "staple" cards, and two edition later, welcome back Serra and Shivan!)

 

[ferratus]

See, at this point I think 4e is going to be what it is. I'm not sure they could make enough future supplements, stealth-errata, and outright "4.5" level changes to bring some disgruntled players back (some might, some never would).

The problem with trying to "win players back" is that they aren't really keeping up with what is going on. It is through DDI and new rulebooks that you get more gameplay options, and the modular nature of the rules ensures that 4e is going to keep growing for many years to come. Playing a fighter today is a lot different than playing a fighter last year. There are simply more options to customize your character around his race, build or primary weapon.

Aside from more options to customize your character, there are going to be subsystems that are introduced. The most recent subsystem "Skill Powers" is going to be followed by "Racial Powers" and "Source Powers" and possibly even "Squad Powers". In other words since the rules system is so modular and compartmentalized it is easier to stretch what the various subsystems will do without breaking. So new powers, new classes, new races, new feats, new sources will bring with them their new subsystems that will change the way the game is played.

The complaints about homogeneity seem to stem from level based powers and role. I can't see much else in the game that is homogeneous. I can however see a future in which a class is introduced that doesn't get powers in the same way as the classes do now, new roles, or rules for hybrid roles.

But it wouldn't make sense to do this for the sake of collecting old players. Most of them, once they decide a rules system is not for them, are not going to keep up with the expansions and experiments. It is also not worth it to try and attract new players, since no new players have ever been encouraged to enter the RPG hobby based on the particularities of a rules system.

No, it is going to be for the current fanbase, who want to experiment with the new rules system and try out new things. This isn't as limiting as it sounds, since an engaged fanbase is going to want to keep their group in the game and recruit new players. I am also going to wager that unless you are hardcore for a particular play experience you will eventually get bored with any RPG system and move on to do other things in your life. The much maligned RPG publishing treadmill helps to lessen this fatigue with play experience, and keeps people in the game.

I seriously think (no joke) 4e is going to be a "lost edition" like 2e; many old players leave it, but hundreds of new players join (I was one of those 2e newbies who never saw 1e until years later). However, in a dozen years (give or take) WotC designers (having learned the limits of their new system structure) will go back to "the math", fix the glaring errors, add a dash of nostalgic elements to lure back some of the lost players, and come out with a 5e that will be utterly amazing.

I don't think any edition of D&D is a "lost" edition. After all, when I think back to my gaming groups from 2e and 3e the only thing that is constant to both groups is myself. I believe that none of the guys I knew back when I played 2e are still playing RPG's, and out of the 20 people I played with regularly in 3e only 4 are still playing RPG's, and only 2 of those 4 are playing D&D. The two are in my current D&D group, largely because I'm keeping them there.

In the end, unless you are continually and actively playing, eventually you leave RPG's behind. I think there were plenty of people who liked 2e and hated 3e. I've met about as many people who didn't like 3e as I've met people who didn't like 4e. A not so strange thing happened as the years went on though. I found less and less people who liked 2e more than 3e simply because they became less and less involved with D&D and its community, or to stay in the D&D community they played 3e and found they didn't dislike it as much as they thought they did.

I fully expect that 3e support will likewise evaporate over the next decade to the same extent that 1e's and 2e's did, unless Pathfinder is so wildly successful that it eclipses 4e D&D in popularity. Anything's possible, but I'm certainly not putting any money on that happening.

 

[SSquirrel]

Uh. First off, 2e's PHB was Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, SPECIALIST (Illusionist, etc), Cleric, SPECIALTY PRIEST (granted, they were guidelines more than a class), Druid, Thief, and BARD (Yes, they were there, and they kicked ass).

Specialist mages and priests were sub-classes of the base class. I never counted them as separate classes. Bards were indeed in the 2E PHB, but they weren't all that. Bards didn't get remotely decent until the Complete Bards Handbook came out.

Second, that's one more class than 4e allows. 2 if you count Specialty Priests, but I don't. More if you want to include multi-class combos.

And I STILL can't play a druid, bard, specialist wizard, or gnome using the 1st 3 4e books.

4E PHB has 8 classes Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard. 2E PHB had 8 non-sub-classes. Replace Druids and Bards with Warlords and Warlocks. You actually have more multi-class combinations in 4E b/c you can multi-class with anything.

Third, in the 2e DMG I have about 300% more magic items than the 4e PHB, and about double the monsters in the 2e Monstrous Compendium than I do in the 4e MM, including centaurs, frost giants, metallic (and gem!) dragons, iron golems, banshees, nymphs, genies, mephits, werebears and weretigers, and air, earth, and water elementals.

Overall, I think I have a heck of a lot more content using a "core only" 2e than if I was running "core only" 4e.

Yeah you have more magic items, but vast swaths of them were completely useless items most groups would never use or slight descriptor differences. The 4E book provides an easy way to create a weapon with +X and an additional ability instead of having sword +1, sword +1, +2vs magic, sword +1, +2 vs fire, etc. all spelled out in the charts.

WoTC was very upfront that they wanted the initial MM in 4E to be focused on things people would actually fight and browsing the list of monsters it is a more standard mix of creatures. Never had a DM throw mephits at us, there are 8 jillion types of dragons over the years, werebears and tigers are far less common than werewolves, etc. They were never going to have a book that had everything eveyrone wanted day 1, we have 35 years worth of creation to pick from and millions of opinions.

 

[BryonD]

I fully expect that 3e support will likewise evaporate over the next decade to the same extent that 1e's and 2e's did, unless Pathfinder is so wildly successful that it eclipses 4e D&D in popularity. Anything's possible, but I'm certainly not putting any money on that happening.

I think 3E and 4E are each so distinctly different from 1E/2E, and that the nature of the market place is also so different, that simply predicting something will happen to the newer editions purely because it happened to prior editions is a flawed analysis.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think any edition of D&D is a "lost" edition. After all, when I think back to my gaming groups from 2e and 3e the only thing that is constant to both groups is myself. I believe that none of the guys I knew back when I played 2e are still playing RPG's, and out of the 20 people I played with regularly in 3e only 4 are still playing RPG's, and only 2 of those 4 are playing D&D. The two are in my current D&D group, largely because I'm keeping them there.

In the end, unless you are continually and actively playing, eventually you leave RPG's behind. I think there were plenty of people who liked 2e and hated 3e. I've met about as many people who didn't like 3e as I've met people who didn't like 4e. A not so strange thing happened as the years went on though. I found less and less people who liked 2e more than 3e simply because they became less and less involved with D&D and its community, or to stay in the D&D community they played 3e and found they didn't dislike it as much as they thought they did.

I fully expect that 3e support will likewise evaporate over the next decade to the same extent that 1e's and 2e's did, unless Pathfinder is so wildly successful that it eclipses 4e D&D in popularity. Anything's possible, but I'm certainly not putting any money on that happening.

The only unknown factor in the equation is the proliferation of OGL-style content. Whereas if you were playing D&D in 1989 and didn't like 2e, you could peal off into only a handful of radically different games (GURPS, MERPS, Palladium, etc). The OGL market (as it is) has given some offerings that are similar enough to D&D (True d20, C&C, Pathfinder, M&M, Retro-clones, etc) that people can find a game they like or that suits their style without having to convert to (and subsequently rebuilt-to-suit) 4e D&D. While I don't think any of these games will ever grow to rival D&D, I do think they've taken a larger chunk of the disgruntled fanbase than other games did in 89 or 2000.

 

[ferratus]

I would say that all other RPG's, even other d20 RPG's, are usually played after a D&D group or a D&D community is well established and looking for something new. If you are looking to start a new tabletop gaming group cold, you generally have to start with D&D because it is the biggest and most popular RPG. The OGL and D20 system allowed a great expansion of genres to be introduced to more D&D groups, because it removed a great barrier of having to learn a new rules system. Even so, all these other d20 rules systems only snagged a fraction of the players of D&D.

Tabletop Gaming is a fringe hobby, and not playing the same system as the majority makes you a fringe of a fringe. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does make the like-minded hard to find. Since RPG's require a group of 4-5 people with enough spare time and interest to meet regularly you generally find that the majority tastes prevail.

Generally, the only way to keep yourself from eventually playing a 4e game is to make sure you keep your gaming group together over the several years it will take till a new edition comes. The internet and living in a large city (500,000+) will also allow you to survive with a little persistence.