Clark Peterson on 4E

[Nikosandros]

I wish I was that smart... I really wish. *sigh*

Maybe I should follow hongs example and get Mass Effect and play instead of post.

It was just a joke... even if we disagree I feel that you're making valuable contributions to this thread (and in general).

 

[Wyrmshadows]

IMO Clark is finally being honest. It isn't that he was lying before, its that he wanted so bad to like 4e, wanted so bad to be part of the new edition of D&D that he lost all objectivity early on. IMO he was a bit of a fanboi with the "rah rah 4e" stuff. His loyalty to the D&D brand is what caused him to be such a cheerleader and this IMO is the problem. D&D is simply the name of a set of mechanics owned by WoTC and IMO deserves loyalty only so long as it does what you need it to. The moment the mechanics currently called D&D fail to provide you with the gaming experience you desire is the moment it is time to support something else.

It isn't like there is a shortage of good OGL mechanics available.

Clark wants D&D to feel a certain way but it can't be done, not with 4e as it is. 4e feels the way it does because of the design goals of 4e, its that simple. 4e's design goals were very different than those of 3e and this is why so many people say 4e doesn't feel like D&D. I'm not going to argue with "4e feels like D&D" sentiment. Feel is subjective but I know plenty of folks who feel that 4e is D&D in name only.

I think that Clark would be best served by getting past the D&D brand loyalty and working with a set of mechanics that actually has the feel he wants. The OGL still exists and Pathfinder is in the works. The OGL would allow him to add the 4e elements he likes to a 3.5e framework and he could maintain control of the IP in perpetuity as opposed to losing it when WoTC decides to finish off open gaming completely which the next version of D&D.


Wyrmshadows

 

[BryonD]

He's talking about making 4e supplement, according to his standard "support the latest edition" stance. If it's a 4e supplement, then it requires the purchase of 4e in order to use.

If he's talking about just taking things from 4e and making a 3.75, then I'd think even less of it, as that would be a pillar of his company's policy that he'd be abandoning.

Wild guess alert......

In my reading and speculation it is neither of the above, though probably much closer to the former than the latter. I think "3.75" is out of the question and hasn't been hinted at. Further, if he was thinking 3.75 and talking to Erik about it, then Pathfinder would be the clear starting point. Not happening.

That said, based on the breadth and degree of issue he identified, I could certainly see a very significantly different take on the game. So it could "replace" rather than supplement the current core.

That said, he clearly said it depends on a better GSL. (Which to me ends the conversation beyond anything more than fun debate of alternate reality) If a better GSL were to come along, I still can not believe it would allow that level of rebuild. So the core would be required. Whether or not it was readily compatible with adventures and splatbooks is another question altogether.

 

[BryonD]

nevermind

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No need stating the obvious. Better say what do you interpret he is saying then? What are you reading? -since it seems you do not agree with the above interpretation.

I just read what he writes, and don't try to make more out of it then I see written in those lines.

The passage you quoted gives me the feel Clark might not like the fact that most of the powers are limited to damage + status effect/movement effect (especially the latter), and would like something else. I don't know what that something else would be. Maybe he wants not every major class ability after the 1st level abilities to be limited to powers. Maybe he wants to get away from the tactical/board game focus of the powers and have them stand more "on their own".

I don't see him claiming 4E is no longer an RPG or nonsense like that. I can't really say 3E tactical combat gave me a strong role-playing feel, either. I think combat is just combat. It's fun, it's exciting, and in most good games, the character you play, the role you pretend to be in, matters in combat. But role-playing is still a little more in that. Maybe Clark wants the powers to matter more outside of combats. Maybe he wants to make the powers a less prevalent component out of class design. Maybe he wants to have powers that deal more non-combat stuff, too.

I have no idea where he will end up with this. Maybe it'll interest me, maybe it won't.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Sure would have been a different world if the GSL has come out on time for the 3PPs.

I agree with this. If the GSL was not a sucide pact for 3PPs, Clark would be making 4th Edition stuff right now.

Since he can't, he doesn't have anything better to do then say bad things about 4th Edition.

 

[xechnao]

I just read what he writes, and don't try to make more out of it then I see written in those lines.

The passage you quoted gives me the feel Clark might not like the fact that most of the powers are limited to damage + status effect/movement effect (especially the latter), and would like something else. I don't know what that something else would be. Maybe he wants not every major class ability after the 1st level abilities to be limited to powers. Maybe he wants to get away from the tactical/board game focus of the powers and have them stand more "on their own".

I don't see him claiming 4E is no longer an RPG or nonsense like that. I can't really say 3E tactical combat gave me a strong role-playing feel, either. I think combat is just combat. It's fun, it's exciting, and in most good games, the character you play, the role you pretend to be in, matters in combat. But role-playing is still a little more in that. Maybe Clark wants the powers to matter more outside of combats. Maybe he wants to make the powers a less prevalent component out of class design. Maybe he wants to have powers that deal more non-combat stuff, too.

I have no idea where he will end up with this. Maybe it'll interest me, maybe it won't.

You weren't paying enough attention then. I figured there was no need to quote every single phrase of Clark on that thread
"Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

Clark"

Bold emphasis mine

And I do not find it nonsense. I understand it pretty well.

 

[Mallus]

His notion is to come up with a '4E that is still D&D'. Myself, I question whether this is necessary.

Perhaps he likes the mechanical framework but not the final implementation and/or the associated flavor. This seems to be the most reasonable answer.

Clark's favorite flavor of D&D is evidently 1E. I call that a respectable choice.

Sure.

So the question is... especially with OSRIC, the OGL and the resurgence of interest in old school gaming... why doesn't Necromancer just do 1E products and get it over with?

Because they want to sell more books? (I think the resurgence of interest in old school gaming is greatly exaggerated, at least in terms of the market).

I'd be interested in their stuff if it wasn't written for new school systems.

I think a lot of people share that opinion, but not enough to make it a viable business decision for Necromancer Games, hence their consideration of making 4e products.

 

[Filcher]

Ultimately this is a new entry in the war to establish a new, palatable, standard, and it would be pointless to enter the war if you aren't willing to do what it takes to win.

What is interesting, to me, is that Clark doesn't need to win the war. Paizo *needs* (in my estimation) to claim and hold territory. Same with Wizards (although they need to make out with more territory than Paizo). But the N3cro edition can simply exist, in a worst case scenario, as a Clark Peterson vanity press variant.

 

[Mallus]

He called it a miniature game that needs to be turned BACK into a roleplaying game.

He's wrong. But entitled to his opinion.

Read that again.

He's still wrong. And still entitled to his opinion.

It is a miniature game.

It was a role-playing game last night when my friends and I played it. Our characters rescued a goblin union organizer from an ambush by fae assassins. Later, my guy offered to compose 'highly eroticized propaganda' to aid the labor movement... it's a long story.

As it stands, action needs to be taken to make it return to being a roleplaying game.

And that action is 'play with creative people'. At least, that works for us.

In other words, in its current form it falls short of being a roleplaying game.

It's possible to not like something while still recognizing what it is. Liver and onions, for instance, while revolting, is still food, and anyone asserting otherwise is being silly.

That said, I wish Necromancer Games luck with their 4e products, if they decide to go that route. I'd love to see some diverse, high-quality takes on 4e. I just don't think it needs to turned back into something is obviously already is.