Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 4301957" data-attributes="member: 23619">You raise some good questions.The point I was attempting to make with the comment you quoted was that everyone in 4e is basically so much the same that they all feel bland. They are all basically the same product, just different packaging. It digresses from the point of this topic, somewhat, but also still furthers my point of video-gamey-ness in that everyone is basically the same thing in a video game and the same thing in 4e. In 3 previous editions of D&D, if you were a fighter, you knew it and so did everyone else and when it came to physical combat, you were going to come out on top unless you were "outgunned". If you were a wizard, sure, you could wear pants instead of a dress, but you were aces at spells. Now, there is no real distinction between a fighter's power and a wizard's, and there is no limit to them. In 3e, a fighter going on a full attack would out-damage just about anything out there, while a wizard would drop the bomb on enemies like no one else. Now, everyone has roughly the same effectiveness which is lower than any other edition because 4e requires the presence and cooperation of 3-4 other players to succeed. However, with other editions, especially in the earlier days, there were never any arguments of one class being "better". Wizards were the tops in terms of raw power, but that was "balanced" by keeping others around for assistance like a good cleric or rogue and a few fighter types. And the non-wizards were happy with this because they knew that the more they kept the wizard safe, the less he had to use his spells, the more he would have to use when things got tight. That was balance in 1e and 2e. Balance never really came about until 3e when WotC tried to make classes "the same" in terms of power and skill and failed miserably. I would have to say that for 4e, they super-succeeded, or over-achieved their goal! Now, everyone is "the same" to the point of blandness and it is now up to the players to have to come up with the "window dressing" to make their characters distinct instead of it already being there. It is the generic-ness of the game now that, I suspect, strongly contributes to the video-gamey-ness of D&D. "Player 1" is little different than "Player 2" or "Player 3" or "Player 4" except in name and general appearance. Now, they have watered-down powers that require other watered-down powers to get through an encounter whether it be combat or skill checks. In 1e-3e, players could run around solo and if they chose to play in a group they could do more than they could individually. Now, characters have to run around in a group just to have a chance at survival. Also, the idea of what amounts to unlimited healing only contributes to the "me, now" immediate gratification of modern (gaming) society. "Back in the day", there was no problem with having to stop and make camp. Sometimes it got excessive, but at times, having to find a defensible spot in a dungeon made for a more exciting game, and even if our rest was interrupted, we still got hp and spells and such back when we were done. Now, the reasoning, "we can have more encounters before resting", just feeds the "me now" fire and seems to have suspended fun and imagination for a lot of people.</blockquote>

Verification