Removing homogenity from 4e

[Remathilis]

Man, I came to an edition war and a therapy session broke out!

There are some elements to being "Left Behind" (or "Refusing to Move On") that seems odd. Its weird to support a game that isn't D&D (even if its D&D with a different name). Its weird to no longer get excited at the WotC product catalog. Its weird to find yourself in the world of OGL after being a solid "WotC-only" DM for so long. Its weird not to have an "official" magazine anymore, or to be labeled "grognard" by the new-kids. At this rate, I'll be embracing OSRIC and quoting Gygax!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Well I would like to make a counter point to that. In 3.5, the general assumption was that a party of 4 PCs would battle one monster. Therefore the monster could be more complex because that one creature was the only monster the DM had to control. In 4th, the general assumption is that there will be one monster per PCs. Each single monster will be simpler to run because it's assume that the DM will run mutiple monsters. Having mutliple monsters per battle also means you can combine monster A and monster B to create unique combinations of monster groups for your encounters. You also have to consider synergy between monsters. If monster A does this then monster B can do that.

I obviously missed the memo on that one. Mixing and synergizing different monsters and terrain is what I thought D&D has always done and done well. 4E spells it out and makes it easier/more manageable for the DM but for me, it has always been part of the game. We've always been able to mix ranged foes with our melee ones haven't we?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

This does suck, and it is true. The problem is, it isn't likely to change, and there isn't anything that can fix this for you.

That "this sucks" perception is strongest when you first realize that you're no longer in step with the current thinking or trends or whatever. However, once accepted, that break becomes kinda liberating. In my case, I no longer see it as "sucking" at all.

One can only complain or learn to exist in the new paradigm.

Both of those options implicitly accept the new paradigm. Once you break away from it, it doesn't matter, and you're operating in a different paradigm. With the Internet, there's no great obstacles to finding other "creative minds" who are more in sync with your gaming preferences, despite the pool being smaller. There are other magazines and blogs. The "suckage factor" quickly fades, in my experience.*

I stepped off the carousel some time ago. At first, I thought the situation kinda sucked. But as it turns out, I'm having more fun and playing with more new gamers (i.e. new to me, not necessarily "newbies") than I have in years.

* - There's one area where I still have a lingering "this sucks" feeling: when I go into game stores. Browsing a game store does give me a sense of something lost, because so little in today's game store is relevant to me and my tastes. I used to love browsing game stores. So that's an actual loss. Unlike playing what I like, or talking with like minded gamers, or reading about the games I enjoy, there's no real replacement for that in my "alternative gaming paradigm."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The idea of shouting "ADAPT OR DIE" coming from people who are playing a game that came directly from people voicing dissent about the previous edition is mind bogglingly hilarious.



In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out. I dislike being disappointed :<.

 

[NoWayJose]

The idea of shouting "ADAPT OR DIE" coming from people who are playing a game that came directly from people voicing dissent about the previous edition is mind bogglingly hilarious.

In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out. I dislike being disappointed :<.

There were at least 2 suggestions so far. They're already buried Which so far proves my previous statement...

This type of thread ("here is a perceived problem with D&D; let's come up with a houserule for improvement") never goes anywhere. <snip> the thread only survives only as long as people get to argue about whether the perceived problem actually exists or not. Once some consensus is reached, or people agree to disagree, there are a few half-hearted suggestions, and then the thread dies.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Man, I came to an edition war and a therapy session broke out!

There are some elements to being "Left Behind" (or "Refusing to Move On") that seems odd. Its weird to support a game that isn't D&D (even if its D&D with a different name). Its weird to no longer get excited at the WotC product catalog. Its weird to find yourself in the world of OGL after being a solid "WotC-only" DM for so long. Its weird not to have an "official" magazine anymore, or to be labeled "grognard" by the new-kids. At this rate, I'll be embracing OSRIC and quoting Gygax!

It's ok. We all get put out to pasture sooner or later.

The "sameness" that many feel from 4E is simply a byproduct of attempted balance. There will be no major changes to the feel of play as long as that balance is a priority in the design.

 

[gribble]

I'm interested in having your take on how tactical variety was more diverse in previous editions of the game.

It's getting a bit off topic, but seeing as you asked:

With earlier editions, your characters actions were a blank slate. You could pretty much suggest any action you wanted, and the DM would either have rules to adjudicate it or be able to come up with something to handle it. Wrestle (grab) the opposing wizard's wand out of his hand, disarm the opposing fighter, trip a fleeing opponent, etc.

Now I know 4e has the stunts rules, but unless you just want to deal damage to the opponent (and usually less than one of your powers can do) they're not really the same. I also know there were situations in earlier editions where any (or all) of the above weren't viable as well, but it still felt like you had a bunch of options besides standing there and full attacking.

Maybe it's a perception thing, but with 4e it seems like the only viable options a character has in combat are the powers in front of them - and most of them are the same every fight.

So a players/groups "tactics" are pretty much dictated to them by the cards in front of each player, whereas with earlier editions they were totally freeform and could conceivably (and usually viably) be pretty much anything.

I'll admit it's probably a mix of perception and the rules, but it certainly seems to be evident (regardless of the underlying cause) in most, if not all, of the 4e games I've played in or run. It's markedly noticable when I compare a group of players that I'm running 3.5 for compared to the same group of players when I run 4e...

Does it stop me playing 4e? No, it's a game I run/play and enjoy, but I definitely notice the predictablity and sameness of 4e compared to 3.5 & Pathfinder. In some ways it's a good thing, in other ways not so much, but to try and argue it doesn't exist is... well, unbelievable IME.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The "sameness" that many feel from 4E is simply a byproduct of attempted balance. There will be no major changes to the feel of play as long as that balance is a priority in the design.

Yeah... that's true, and I hate that. I strongly believe D&D missed a lot when it stopped being a flavor-driven game to become a balance-driven one.

Cheers,

 

[NoWayJose]

The "sameness" that many feel from 4E is simply a byproduct of attempted balance. There will be no major changes to the feel of play as long as that balance is a priority in the design.

I think 3rd edition also prioritized balance, but trying to balance classes was like comparing apples to oranges, and could be achieved (sort of) through rigorous playtesting and it was still more of an art than a science. 4E unified the mechanics for all powers and abilities. Now it's easy to compare and balance when everyone's a citrus fruit.

 

[Thasmodious]

Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.

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.

Your fighter suffers a terrible fate brought on by Irontooth. Time to roll up a new PC. "Screw tanking" you think, I'm gonna play a wizard.

So you roll up a first level wizard. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 2 dailies (of which you can only have one at a time). You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy an implement and cloth armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level wizard, ready to go.

See what just happened? The steps feel EXACTLY the same. Sure, your powers have different parameters (1[W]+Str vs. 1d6+Int), your weapons and armor is different, and your class abilities are different to fit your role, but in the end, both classes are the same skeleton with different clothes thrown on them.

Ok, here's why things seem "samey" to some.

You roll up a 1st level fighter. You pick a race with a +2 to Str, put an 18 in the stat, and pick a dump stat for your 8. You choose a couple of skills, a couple of feats. You pick out a couple of weapons, some armor, and gear. Then you fiddle with the math until you have a 1st level fighter ready to go.

...he dies...

You roll up a 1st level wizard. You pick a race with a +2 to Int, put an 18 in the stat, and pick a dump stat for your 8. You choose a couple of skills, a couple of feats. You pick out a couple of spells, a robe, and gear. Then you fiddle with the math until you have a 1st level wizard ready to go.

Making up carefully worded, pointless straw-men is fun!

All you've argued here is that the character creation rules are the same for all 1st level characters, which is just as true in 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and 1st edition... Notice how 3e has a generic, step by step entry for making and leveling characters that applies to all of them?