What makes an RPG good?

[Jason]

1e had magic item crafting, at least.

Well, sort of. Outside of potions and scrolls the rule was basically "The DM Makes it up."

All of the various other magic items will require the use of the magic spell, enchant an item, save clerical items.
With respect to the former, you must determine which spells and ingredients are necessary to the manufacture of each specific magic item.

The example given is a ring of spell storing, which the DM decides requires a 5,000 g.p. platinum ring, enchant item, permanency on a scroll of the spells the player wants stored, and wish to combine the scroll with the ring. The player won't discover what is required until he's already cast enchant item, which is a 6th level spell requiring 2+1-8 days to cast and then gives 24 hours to complete casting all the necessary spells on the item. The DMG notes that the spells and preparations may easily take more than 24 hours to complete, meaning the initial casting of the spell would be wasted and the mage would have to spend another 2+1-8 days casting just enchant item again.

Of course, you could tell the player before, if you are soft-hearted or he or she is intelligent enough to ask before starting the ball rolling.

Clerics or druids don't need as many spells but do need more time and a little luck:

Clerics and druids making an item which is applicable to their profession must spend a fortnight in retreat, meditating in complete isolation. Thereafter, he or she must spend a sennight fasting. Finally, he or she must pray over and purify the item to become magical (this process takes but a day). Of course, the item must be of the finest quality just as detailed in the enchant an item spell description. Thereafter the cleric or druid must place the item upon his or her altar and invoke the direct favor of his or her deity to instill a special power into the item. There is a 1% per day cumulative chance that the item will then be empowered as desired, providing the cleric or druid has been absolutely exemplary in his or her faith and alignment requirements. Furthermore, if the item is one with charges, the cleric or druid must then take it into seclusion and cast the requisite spells upon it, doing so within 24 hours of its being favored by the deity. In other cases, the item need only be sanctified to the appropriate deity in order to complete its manufacture.

[kyoryu]

4e

Everyone deals 2d6 + optional rider effect.

I'm saying that the variance between 4e classes is minimal, especially compared to 3e, they're all hitting the same notes. Thus, samey.

4e

???

Here's a list of things characters in 4e can potentially bring to the table at 1st level.

Breathe some kind of breath weapon on a bunch of enemies close to you
Teleport up to 25'
Get a free reroll
Force an enemy to reroll an attack
Gain +1 for a turn to attack and charisma bonus to damage
Grant a +2 to an ally to hit
Grant additional armor to yourself and an ally for a turn
Grant additional damage to a nearby ally
Grant temporary hit points to an ally
Force an enemy to run away from you
Grant all nearby allies a +2 to hit
Heal an ally
Daze an opponent
Make an enemy take ongoing damage, which they can't get rid of until they spend a turn not attacking
Heal everyone near you, and make your healing abilities more effective for the rest of the fight
Make an enemy vulnerable to your attacks
Create a guardian that will attack anything that stands next to it, and that you can move
Attack multiple enemies next to you
Attack an enemy in a way that always does at least some damage
Attack an enemy with an attack bonus
Attack an enemy and knock them back
Let a nearby ally move two squares on your turn, not counting against their movement
Attack an enemy, move, and attack another enemy
Knock an enemy down
Halve an enemy's movement for a turn
Do lots of damage
Heal yourself as part of an attack
Give yourself a bonus to attacking and damage against a particular enemy
Help an ally overcome a negative effect
Give yourself a damage bonus
Make enemies weaker attacking people that aren't you
Grant yourself temporary hit points
Give your opponent a penalty to hit
Attack, with a bonus based on how surrounded you are
Grant additional armor to an adjacent ally
Make terrain difficult
Weaken an opponent
Make a flaming sphere that will move around, damaging things next to it, and can attack things as well
Make a cloud that will damage any creature that enters it or stays in it.
And of course Sleep. Because D&D has to have sleep.

plus of course all of the positional stuff - flanking, covering, etc.

.... and I only went through three classes. In only the first PHB.

So, yeah. There's options.

I'm not sidestepping it. I'm saying different resource usage will affect turn-by-turn usage.

Yes, that's why it's a hypothetical situation.

And when I say "imagine if..." and your response is "no", then you're sidestepping the issue.

Practically speaking you're almost certainly correct, but the point of this exercise is to show how the two aspects (internal resource management and external impact) can vary independently, since that apparently matters to many people (I, personally, don't really care).

[Tanarii]

Here's a list of things characters in 4e can potentially bring to the table at 1st level.

Nicely done.

Yes, that's why it's a hypothetical situation.

And when I say "imagine if..." and your response is "no", then you're sidestepping the issue.

Practically speaking you're almost certainly correct, but the point of this exercise is to show how the two aspects (internal resource management and external impact) can vary independently, since that apparently matters to many people (I, personally, don't really care).

You've totally lost me. As I read your hypothetical situation, I think that the two aspects cannot vary independently. If you vary resource management, the external impact varies too. Because "external impact" includes how and when you use it. Doesn't it?

Edit: okay, so here's your statement I was disagreeing with. I was definitely not sidestepping the question. But I was lost of what you meant by "external impact", it looks like you mean "effect you can have on the battlefield".

1) What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis, and what effect you can have on the battlefield?

By the first classification, they'd be the same.

No, by the first classification, which includes "What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis", they would not be the same, when you vary resources required but otherwise identical effect you can have on the battlefield.

[Cluedrew]

Yes, because as we all know, no system has ever differentiated characters off the battlefield.

A bit of a strawman, since the conversation has mostly been around battlefield stuff.

Sorry, that isn't actually directed at you. You just happened to have stated the best one line that expressed how I think the thread in general was forgetting about. We can talk about what happens in the combat mini-game (not "small", has a different core loop then the main game) for quite a while - because there is a lot there - but it will never be all the diversity of characters a role-playing game could cover. I don't think its a strawman anyways.

On Sidestepping: Does it matter? Just say what you think now and you can then debate whether a decision made within a turn but effecting later turns counts as turn-by-turn or not.

[Tanarii]

On Sidestepping: Does it matter? Just say what you think now and you can then debate whether a decision made within a turn but effecting later turns counts as turn-by-turn or not.

I took turn-by-turn to mean "across the span of some number of turns". Not this turn right now. A birds eye view of the sum of individual decisions being made on many turns, as it were.

If it's meant to mean "on any one given turn" then I need to start all over from the top 🤔😂

[kyoryu]

Nicely done.


You've totally lost me. As I read your hypothetical situation, I think that the two aspects cannot vary independently. If you vary resource management, the external impact varies too. Because "external impact" includes how and when you use it. Doesn't it?

Not completely independently, likely.

Maybe another example would help?

Let's take three classes:

Class 1 does healing and damage. It uses Vancian spell slot/refresh stuff.
Class 2 also does healing and damage. It uses power points.
Class 3 does mostly battlefield and control, but uses Vancian spell slot/refresh stuff.

Is Class 1 more similar to Class 2 or 3? I'd personally say it's more similar to 2, but I suspect that many of the people arguing that 4e is "samey" would say it's more similar to 3. The external effects are more similar between 1 and 2 (healing and damage), while the internal management is more similar for 1 and 3.

No, by the first classification, which includes "What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis", they would not be the same, when you vary resources required but otherwise identical effect you can have on the battlefield.

What I meant, and probably communicated poorly, is the internal resource management/state management vs. the external effects you have. Spell points and spell refresh slots and fatigue and whatever else vs. damage and effects.

[Witty Username]

Spoiler: Humanity and 4th Edition

Show

... Did you read the section that explained why I made that comparison? I mean you probably did at the time but it is about using a statement about the structure of the argument.

Repeatedly bringing up something that sounds terrible is degrading. Especially if that terrible sounding this is unimportant and false, and I will maintain both of those things until someone forwards a reasonable argument to the contrary.

The way powers were organised were the same and apparently that was enough for people. Which is weird because the no-refresh/short-rest/long-rest called problems before but put at-will/encounter/daily on the power and suddenly everything is uniform. And you can add frills but I think 5e is the first edition where spell-slots are more than a bunch of daily power pools.

I don't get it either really. I found 4th edition's combat system to be the most engaging of any of the systems. Which is more a comment on the low bar set by other editions than the quality of 4th. (5e is at second at one and a half combats.)

Weren't the powers also standardized in how many characters had? Everyone having the same number of at will/encounter/and daily powers. And if I recall correctly PC's didn't have actions outside of powers (I don't recall very well and as said I don't grok 4e)?

[Calthropstu]

Weren't the powers also standardized in how many characters had? Everyone having the same number of at will/encounter/and daily powers. And if I recall correctly PC's didn't have actions outside of powers (I don't recall very well and as said I don't grok 4e)?

I played one 4e character. It was a control psion from the 3e phb. There was literally nothing my powers could affect outside of combat. I had a power that I could move an enemy and force him to attack. I couldn't use this on an ally, it had to be an enemy.

The game made zero sense in so many circumstances. It was like you were playing 2 different characters. One a useless bufoon who could do nothing and the other a combat monster.

4e was not a good game.

[Telok]

The game made zero sense in so many circumstances. It was like you were playing 2 different characters. One a useless bufoon who could do nothing and the other a combat monster.

Not totally true. I had a druid that could turn into a small bird for 5 minutes, a cat sized spider for 5 minutes, and a small fish for 5 minutes, each once a day. Of course you literally couldn't do anything but move around and none of your stats changed at all, so if you couldn't outrun something normally you still couldn't. Oh, the spider one gave some pathetic plus to stealth that never made a difference. And for some reason they didn't do anything to disguise you so it was still trivial to identify your race.

The character did have a perception bonus more than 11 higher than anyone else. The DM hated that (and the rogue at like 12 high than anyone else) because the take 10 default was better than everyone else's natural 20s. The DM basically couldn't have any stealth stuff going because we were off the die and the system wasn't set up that way.

[Xervous]

The game made zero sense in so many circumstances. It was like you were playing 2 different characters. One a useless bufoon who could do nothing and the other a combat monster.

Given the choice between half a buffoon or a full buffoon I’d take 4e over 5e. If the noncombat stuff is handwavium in either case it’s nice to have a fighter that feels like more than an RTS unit set to attack-move.

But again that’s just me. 5e did a great job with hitting its design intent of being an easy entry game vs it’s immediate predecessors that presents the D&D feel the broad audience expected. Sure it misses on balance here and there but can I really call it bad if that was never the prime intent? (I do recall Mearls saying options and choice were bad in so many words. Shaving that off certainly worked for their marketing.)

But if we’re using mass adoption as a metric does that make McDonald’s good? Eh, I’m not going to point at sales figures.

[Calthropstu]

Not totally true. I had a druid that could turn into a small bird for 5 minutes, a cat sized spider for 5 minutes, and a small fish for 5 minutes, each once a day. Of course you literally couldn't do anything but move around and none of your stats changed at all, so if you couldn't outrun something normally you still couldn't. Oh, the spider one gave some pathetic plus to stealth that never made a difference. And for some reason they didn't do anything to disguise you so it was still trivial to identify your race.

The character did have a perception bonus more than 11 higher than anyone else. The DM hated that (and the rogue at like 12 high than anyone else) because the take 10 default was better than everyone else's natural 20s. The DM basically couldn't have any stealth stuff going because we were off the die and the system wasn't set up that way.

This just makes 4e sound so much worse. I didn't even look at the druid.

[Telok]

This just makes 4e sound so much worse. I didn't even look at the druid.

It was just that it was a very "rules first" system and encouraged the "if the power doesn't say it then it doesn't do it" thing. So thunder powers didn't technically make noise, fire powers didn't technically burn anything, archery powers couldn't use non-magic non-standard arrows that weren't their own special attack power. If you played narrative first and saved all the mechanics for in combat only, well it was better at least. Then a "turn into a small bird" was what you expect it to be instead of "you are size:tiny(2.5 ft high) and fly at your regular ground speed, plus maybe feathers".

[kyoryu]

It was just that it was a very "rules first" system and encouraged the "if the power doesn't say it then it doesn't do it" thing. So thunder powers didn't technically make noise, fire powers didn't technically burn anything, archery powers couldn't use non-magic non-standard arrows that weren't their own special attack power. If you played narrative first and saved all the mechanics for in combat only, well it was better at least. Then a "turn into a small bird" was what you expect it to be instead of "you are size:tiny(2.5 ft high) and fly at your regular ground speed, plus maybe feathers".

The weirder thing is that while combat was that way, non-combat was very much "fiction first" and freeform.

And of course the weird split between "powers" (stuff in combat) and "rituals" (stuff out of combat) made it easy to miss the latter.

[Calthropstu]

The weirder thing is that while combat was that way, non-combat was very much "fiction first" and freeform.

And of course the weird split between "powers" (stuff in combat) and "rituals" (stuff out of combat) made it easy to miss the latter.

Except that doesn't work. "I am a mental control psion, so I use my psychic powers to charm the queen into marrying me so I become the king." Free form roleplay technically allows this but it gets stupid. It gets stupider when thieves start stealing stuff (imagine that) and suddenly loot tables start becoming irrelevant. The game literally breaks itself.

[Cluedrew]

Weren't the powers also standardized in how many characters had? Everyone having the same number of at will/encounter/and daily powers. And if I recall correctly PC's didn't have actions outside of powers (I don't recall very well and as said I don't grok 4e)?

Maybe? I do no the relative focus on different types of powers did change between classes from reading character guides and that sort of thing, but maybe that was entirely on the relative power of the powers. I only played one game of 4e and only played one class and although I was doing very different things than the other players I wasn't keeping track of there resources.

Free form roleplay technically allows this but it gets stupid.

Having actually done a lot of free-form role-playing; yes that can happen. Sometimes you just got to call someone out or not get upset when someone points out what you said was stupid. And the end result works surprisingly well. Main issue is attendance.

[Max_Killjoy]

It was just that it was a very "rules first" system and encouraged the "if the power doesn't say it then it doesn't do it" thing. So thunder powers didn't technically make noise, fire powers didn't technically burn anything, archery powers couldn't use non-magic non-standard arrows that weren't their own special attack power. If you played narrative first and saved all the mechanics for in combat only, well it was better at least. Then a "turn into a small bird" was what you expect it to be instead of "you are size:tiny(2.5 ft high) and fly at your regular ground speed, plus maybe feathers".

The weirder thing is that while combat was that way, non-combat was very much "fiction first" and freeform.

And of course the weird split between "powers" (stuff in combat) and "rituals" (stuff out of combat) made it easy to miss the latter.

Those are two things that made if feel very much like a tabletop version of a video game. The former because that's exactly how spell effects, etc, work in most video games -- doesn't matter how much fire gets thrown around, it's just damage numbers and nothing catches on fire. The latter because I it feels like those games where you wander around in one mode, and then when you hit a combat encounter, you switch to an entirely different screen and do a little turn-based series of attacks back and forth.

And it's part of why I don't consider 4e to be a good RPG -- that jarring disconnect between "combat mode" and "freeform mode". (5e retains some of that, compare the combat rules to the "OK, cool, whatever" feel of the skills, etc.)

But I guess that's subjective, there's a mechs in space game called Lancer that some people adore, despite the fact that anything outside of combat in the mechs is handled in a manner barely more detailed than "tell us what you do now" improv, including any combat or conflict that takes place outside the mechs.

[Tanarii]

The weirder thing is that while combat was that way, non-combat was very much "fiction first" and freeform.

And of course the weird split between "powers" (stuff in combat) and "rituals" (stuff out of combat) made it easy to miss the latter.

As unbelievable as it is, the authors are heavy believers in narrative/fiction/story. They're the kind of folks that think 'mechanics' and and 'flavor' are separate and separable concepts (explicitly in this case), and that super detailed and complex rules are fine because you can provide your own narrative to go with it.

Unsurprisingly a lot of the worst offenders of bad mechanics are believers in narrative/fiction/story like Palladium's Seimbeida and Wujcik and anything White Wolf and Burning Wheel's Luke Crane, and they're often believers in the mechanics-flavor myth, even the explicit concept came later.

The end result is of course what we often get when people do that in an RPG. Something that people complain feels board-gamey (or nowadays video-gamey), because all they got out of the published game were the 'mechanics' rules as part of the game.

4e just made it far worse because it required a battle-mat. Nothing makes D&D feel like a board game like a battlemat.

[Telok]

But I guess that's subjective, there's a mechs in space game called Lancer that some people adore, despite the fact that anything outside of combat in the mechs is handled in a manner barely more detailed than "tell us what you do now" improv, including any combat or conflict that takes place outside the mechs.

I feel that Lancer is more of a well done homage to Battletech and it's rpg, with a heavy leavening of mecha anime. It's explicit and open about the break, which works pretty well because of the scale (people -> giant robots) and source materials. You don't go into it expecting fully mechanically supported teen angst rules or a crafting system that cares about the difference between glazed & unglazed pottery.[/hyperbole]

[Cluedrew]

On Lancer: Its a system that is pretty high on my list of systems to try because it feels like it might be able to "rescue" combat-focused RPGs. Might of course and I will not know until I try. But there are a couple of things that make me hopeful:

• Lancer may be described as unapologetic of its combat/non-combat divide but other systems I have seen with similar divides might be better described as ignorant of it. The designers were probably aware of it but the system itself seems to gloss over it much more. This is a "soft" point in that it is a matter of my perception and its not actually an improvement on its own, but addressing make me feel more like the designers knew what they were doing with it.
• The combat-mini-game better matches the character abilities. In Lancer, PCs are lancers - elite military mech pilots - and the mini-game is just mech-combat, regular combat and everything else characters can do but is not there specialty is resolved in the rules-light mode.
  • But wait, don't all combat focused RPGs do that? Some of them, but I'm going to say not D&D and some other famous examples. Consider the rogue, the stealthy rogue, except that stealth is not really part of the combat mini-game. Nor is the ranger's wilderness skills nor the bard's social skills or non-combat uses for wizard spells. In a word, D&D might be combat focused but its character's always came off as more adventure focused. Or just a random fantasy archetype smooshed into the fighter shaped hole.
• The non-combat rules are actually different to (hopefully) make them work better in a rules-light environment. The actual rolling the same but both scores and targets are calculated more coarsely and downtime activity roles uses trinary results and fail-forward like its Powered by the Apocalypse.

I feel a bit weird that my longest point was to head off a counter-point.

[kyoryu]

As unbelievable as it is, the authors are heavy believers in narrative/fiction/story. They're the kind of folks that think 'mechanics' and and 'flavor' are separate and separable concepts (explicitly in this case), and that super detailed and complex rules are fine because you can provide your own narrative to go with it.

Unsurprisingly a lot of the worst offenders of bad mechanics are believers in narrative/fiction/story like Palladium's Seimbeida and Wujcik and anything White Wolf and Burning Wheel's Luke Crane, and they're often believers in the mechanics-flavor myth, even the explicit concept came later.

The end result is of course what we often get when people do that in an RPG. Something that people complain feels board-gamey (or nowadays video-gamey), because all they got out of the published game were the 'mechanics' rules as part of the game.

4e just made it far worse because it required a battle-mat. Nothing makes D&D feel like a board game like a battlemat.

I also think there was a push from WotC for more support for organized play, and trying to apply the lessons from M:tG to 4e.

I mean, I can draw parallel after parallel after parallel.

[Tanarii]

I also think there was a push from WotC for more support for organized play, and trying to apply the lessons from M:tG to 4e.

I mean, I can draw parallel after parallel after parallel.

That's probably consistent with Skill Challenges being a defined system. Although IiRC very few of the organized play official WotC modules included them, at least in the parts done in official play. Which was just levels 1-3 over and over again, unless your group organized itself and used the 3rd party but wotc authorized adventures.

[kyoryu]

That's probably consistent with Skill Challenges being a defined system. Although IiRC very few of the organized play official WotC modules included them, at least in the parts done in official play. Which was just levels 1-3 over and over again, unless your group organized itself and used the 3rd party but wotc authorized adventures.

For sure.

Additionally, all of the combat stuff, and how explicitly defined it was, seems directly cribbed from M:tG. Even the format of "here's the mechanical effects, now here's the flavor text" matches it pretty directly.

[Tanarii]

For sure.

Additionally, all of the combat stuff, and how explicitly defined it was, seems directly cribbed from M:tG. Even the format of "here's the mechanical effects, now here's the flavor text" matches it pretty directly.

Maybe. But Heinsoo clearly wanted it too. After all, he used it in 13th age, which is basically "4th edition the way I should have done it" for him.

OTOH ... was he part of MtG at some point? I don't know his background.

[Talakeal]

Here's a list of things characters in 4e can potentially bring to the table at 1st level.

snip

plus of course all of the positional stuff - flanking, covering, etc.

.... and I only went through three classes. In only the first PHB.

So, yeah. There's options.

How about being useful to the party WITHOUT dealing direct damage?

[kyoryu]

How about being useful to the party WITHOUT dealing direct damage?

So... the issue is that in addition to the other stuff that they're doing, that there's always at least some token amount of damage? I mean, we've pretty clearly established that the things that can be done are, at least potentially, at least as varied as 3.x. But the issue is that there's always a token amount of damage?

[Talakeal]

So... the issue is that in addition to the other stuff that they're doing, that there's always at least some token amount of damage? I mean, we've pretty clearly established that the things that can be done are, at least potentially, at least as varied as 3.x. But the issue is that there's always a token amount of damage?

For me, yes.

The vast majority of abilities in 4E have some sort of rider that either breaks my verisimilitude or doesn't fit the character, and when I intentionally don't select those, the list of powers grows very small indeed.

I also don't like that your forget your lower level powers as you progress, which both limits options and breaks immersion. Its been a long time since I have read it, but don't 4E character's never have more than some-teen powers to choose from at any given time, whereas a 3E caster can have dozens or even hundreds.

[Ravens_cry]

This may well be already covered, but a couple things I like.
The mechanics are as complex as they need to be, but no more.
We're not mentats. We are geeks, so we're willing to do some math, but don't over complicate things to no good end.
Second, the mechanics should reinforce the tone. If the game encourages non-lethal take downs and mercy, yet all combatants fight to the death and the mechanics don't offer any good way to engage in captures and restraint, then the mechanics are at odds with the tone. As a further, if the game is presented as a gung ho 80's action movie romp, yet the mechanics make for highly lethal combat where every bullet counts, again, they are at odds with the tone. In a different setting, it would totally work.
Finally, mechanics should be fun to play. This is my personal opinion, but, while I'm not a super fan of 5th edition D&D, I really like the Advantage/Disadvantage system. It feels like such a great moment when Advantage snatches a success from the jaws of failure, and vice versa for Disadvantage, much more than if you just had a flat bonus or penalty statically equal.

[Quertus]

So... the issue is that in addition to the other stuff that they're doing, that there's always at least some token amount of damage? I mean, we've pretty clearly established that the things that can be done are, at least potentially, at least as varied as 3.x. But the issue is that there's always a token amount of damage?

I was quite surprised at how extensive the list of 4e options was - that was certainly beyond what my group could grok when 4e came out, and we tried our hands at it. So I've been thinking about this for a boot.

There's… numerous potential issues with the… "grouping" of these effects, but… understanding "damage" as an issue might help get the general principle: having Gandalf have a "the sun comes up behind me" attack that targets some defense and deals some damage, with a rider effect of "blinded"? It just doesn't feel quite right.

The mechanics are as complex as they need to be, but no more.

Second, the mechanics should reinforce the tone. If the game encourages non-lethal take downs and mercy, yet all combatants fight to the death and the mechanics don't offer any good way to engage in captures and restraint, then the mechanics are at odds with the tone.

Finally, mechanics should be fun to play. This is my personal opinion, but, while I'm not a super fan of 5th edition D&D, I really like the Advantage/Disadvantage system. It feels like such a great moment when Advantage snatches a success from the jaws of failure, and vice versa for Disadvantage, much more than if you just had a flat bonus or penalty statically equal.

Agreed.

Humans generally prefer simplicity, to the point that they oversimplify habitually. Complexity for complexity's sake is a hard sell.

The Determinator should be encouraged to play the game "correctly" - or, rather, the game should be marketed as played by the Determinator, not by how you *want* it played.

Fun mechanics is… tricky. Subjective. Perhaps, rather, we should say that the mechanics should lend themselves to, rather than oppose, the theme and complexity (and pacing? Through pacing?).

That is, exploding dice and fiddly modifiers take *time*. They force you to *focus* on those bits. Battletech *uses* this to make the tactical "getting fiddly numbers" a big part of the game, of the thought process and tone. Some systems leverage their exploding dice to make the "wow, look what you did!" moments even more memorable, with more buildup.

Other systems seem to just throw in random mechanics for no discernable reason.

So… the mechanics should support and not disrupt the flow? The pacing? The tone? The fun? The source of fun? I'm struggling with chicken and egg wording here.

Unless you just literally mean "I find rock paper scissors fun to play, so that should be the resolution mechanic in all systems". In which case, I… agree much less.

[kyoryu]

For me, yes.

The vast majority of abilities in 4E have some sort of rider that either breaks my verisimilitude or doesn't fit the character, and when I intentionally don't select those, the list of powers grows very small indeed.

I also don't like that your forget your lower level powers as you progress, which both limits options and breaks immersion. Its been a long time since I have read it, but don't 4E character's never have more than some-teen powers to choose from at any given time, whereas a 3E caster can have dozens or even hundreds.

Sure, and I can't really argue those points. But those are very different points than "everything is just damage". (Though I could probably argue a number of the versimillitude arguments, but I'm not going to as a blanket)

Especially the limited selection compared to 3E casters - that's a deliberate design choice for sure, just one that works against what you want.

I was quite surprised at how extensive the list of 4e options was - that was certainly beyond what my group could grok when 4e came out, and we tried our hands at it. So I've been thinking about this for a boot.

There's… numerous potential issues with the… "grouping" of these effects, but… understanding "damage" as an issue might help get the general principle: having Gandalf have a "the sun comes up behind me" attack that targets some defense and deals some damage, with a rider effect of "blinded"? It just doesn't feel quite right.

Sure, but again, "I don't like that everything has a damage component" is a very different argument than "everyone just does damage with some minor rider". In a lot of cases, the rider is the meat.

I won't argue "I don't like that everything has a damage component." It's a true statement, and how can I argue preference?

[Leonard Robel]

To crush your enemies, drive them before you...
I don't know, this is like an existential question I wrestle with all the time.
I think it probably comes down to balance and flexibility.
You want strong rules but also opportunity to be inventive.
You want rules that make you feel like you're really doing something but not too much complexity.
You want to feel at risk yet survive, over and over again.
Some of the stuff you want isn't really possible.
Maybe a good role playing game is like a really good lie.