Removing homogenity from 4e

[thecasualoblivion]

This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.


I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic. Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own. I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.

Others in my group have no interest in that form of mini-game and generally choose character-types that avoid it.

Still others prefer a lessened role and bulid hybrids or choose character types with a limited set of strategic choices.

I dislike heavy positional play on the battlefield. I *don't* like looking for the optimal position my character should occupy on the battlefield and continually re-evaluating the geometry and reacting to forced movement.

4e's emphasis on tactical positioning, and it's de-emphasis on strategic preparation makes the characters feel the same to me. I know my choice of race, class, and ability set will affect the battlefield positioning that makes the character effective, but the amount of strategic preparation is similar and bland regardless of character choice.

This is all well and good, but it has little to do with whether or not 4E is homogenous or not.

 

[Rechan]

Aand folks forget the monk.
​

 

[AngryMojo]

This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.


I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic. Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own. I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.

Others in my group have no interest in that form of mini-game and generally choose character-types that avoid it.

Still others prefer a lessened role and bulid hybrids or choose character types with a limited set of strategic choices.

I dislike heavy positional play on the battlefield. I *don't* like looking for the optimal position my character should occupy on the battlefield and continually re-evaluating the geometry and reacting to forced movement.

4e's emphasis on tactical positioning, and it's de-emphasis on strategic preparation makes the characters feel the same to me. I know my choice of race, class, and ability set will affect the battlefield positioning that makes the character effective, but the amount of strategic preparation is similar and bland regardless of character choice.

This is the type of post that I look for when searching for dissenting opinions. Nagol, you have just expressed exactly what it is about the system that you don't like, but didn't disparage those who play the game and admit that the game isn't for you, but may be for other people. XP for you.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It is mind-boggling to me that you feel this is the best way to present your argument.

Its mind-boggling that you're having so much trouble with it.

 

[lutecius]

:sigh: This could have been an interresting thread without reactions like:

Best way to remove homgenity from 4E is to play it without shallow preconceptions.

The homogeneity of 4th Edition is a myth perpetuated almost exclusively by those with little to no actual play experience.

I've yet to hear an argument that forms an actual argument and isn't just a buzzword.

People who like 4E should play 4E. People who do not like 4E should play something else. Problem solved.

People who do not like 4E and wish that another system was the big dog, or that there were OGL/GSL satellites which can bask in the glow of the big system(currently 4E), I don't know that anybody can solve that problem.

Classes being homogenous is what the OP focused on, which is what I replied to.

I don't think the OP's question was "Do you think 4e is homogeneous?" or even "Do you think it's a good thing?"

Like BryonD said, this has been debated to death for two years. I don't think people will change their mind now.

Every class before the psion used the same "ressource management" system. There is no mechanical distinction between mundane abilities and magic anymore. This is too much homegeneity for some and yes, many of them have actually played 4e.

Classes may still play differently to you, 4e may offer more variety in other areas but this is besides the point.

I believe the OP's question was "4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" not "how can you prove them wrong?"

 

[Rechan]

"4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?"

No.

 

[AngryMojo]

I think the OP's question was "4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" not "how can you prove them wrong?"

The response I had, and still have, is simply a request to define "homogeneous" for me so I can contribue to a logical discussion. I would like to know where the OP is coming from, and I'd like to make sure I understand his terminology.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sigh, this could have been an interresting thread without reactions like:



I don't think the OP's question was "Do you think 4e is homogeneous?" or even "Do you think it's a good thing?"

Like BryonD said, this has been debated to death for two years. I don't think people will change their mind now.

Every class before the psion used the same "ressource management" system. There is no mechanical distinction between mundane abilities and magic anymore. This is too much homegeneity for some, and yes many of them have actually played 4e.

Classes may still play differently to you, 4e may offer more variety in other areas but this is besides the point.

I think the OP's question was "4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" not "how can you prove them wrong?"

The thing is, 4E is what it is, and it isn't OGL. There likely isn't going to be a variant 4E. It isn't going to be solved. WotC's business model is in effect, "take it or leave it". It could be solved by one of the most extensive houseruling projects conceived by man, but why would you do that when you can just play something else.

A core part of any discussion is the validity of the initial premise or question.

If I was to answer the question "4E is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" I would answer no. The general design is too tightly focused to comfortably accomodate these different tastes, WotC is almost completely unlikely to do so, and the lack of an OGL prevents anyone else from doing so. Those who find 4E not to their taste are best off finding something else.


When I look at a discussion like this, I think of three things:

1. WotC has committed to 4E for the long term. At this point feedback will not change 4E, only sales.
2. WotC has made it clear that the era of D&D supporting the OGL is over, and it isn't coming back. Thinking of things in OGL terms(an alternate version of 4E for people who have issues) isn't really realistic.
3. For those who hope to hasten the release of or have a role in influencing 5E, it bears saying that 4E was designed based on feedback from people who were actually playing 3E, not naysayers who disliked the system. If 4E maintains an acceptable level of sales, naysayers will be ignored when it comes to 5E.

 

[Obryn]

It's like I fell asleep, and it's 2008 again all of a sudden.

-O

 

[TheNovaLord]

i think he means homgenous in this sense by the following

I am a 1st level X, and my race is Y

I have some at will powers, encounters powers, and a daily power

to use them i roll a d20, and add about +7, and does some dice damage plus about +5 damage and one of maybe 10 different effects

whether im an orc, ranger, wizard, dwarf or warlock...this is how it works for us all. Mostly

occassionally i can do a minor thing that can change the above

-this is my assumption of the OP.