Clark Peterson on 4E

[The Little Raven]

Wow, I find particular things about Clark's statements to be rather disingenuous.

For example, he says...

I want Fourth Edition done right.

Then, in the same post, he turns around and says...

This is not a criticism of 4E.

Now, if thinks he can do 4e "done right," that means that currently 4e is "done wrong," which is definitely a criticism of 4e. By making that claim, then denying that it's a criticism... well, that strikes me as talking out the other side of his mouth, which is unfortunate.

 

[xechnao]

I respect your opinion, but in my experience the powers are much more nuanced than that.

I was quoting Clark. Actually IMO powers are much more nuanced that that too
-nuanced in a negative way regarding the desired smoothness of the roleplaying experience on the table.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Here's what I know.

I messed with stuff like Conana, Grim Tales, True 20, and other OGL variants.

The only ones I wound up using long term were Arcana Evolved because it's fairly compatible with D&D 3.5 right out of the box.

My days of buying variants of a game I'm already playing are over.

If this version if 100% compatible with 4e, great. If not, I've fallen out of the customer base.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I was really hoping to support Necromancer, but not if this is what they're putting out.

This opinion does confuse me a little.

If you like Necro, and you like the work they do, is the edition/liscence/etc. really that important?

It's like I said over in the Piratecat thread -- a good DM can run anything and have it be a great game. A good company can make a good ruleset, even if it's not 4e. I wouldn't let Edition Warz keep me from playing a good game from a company I trust.

Of course, the same can be true of giving 4e a try if you haven't been a fan, but you like Necro and Necro makes something 4e.

I, personally, can't stand by while awesomeness passes me just because it's not for my favorite game of pretend. It seems odd to me that people would value some edition so highly that they wouldn't give something they think they'd like a try.

if thinks he can do 4e "done right," that means that currently 4e is "done wrong,"

It seems to me more that 4e doesn't hit him personally as "real D&D," but that he doesn't begrudge any of the design decisions made. It's not that 4e was done wrong, it just wasn't done to his personal tastes, which he makes pretty clear are his personal tastes. WotC has different criteria for what makes a good game, so they didn't do something wrong, it just passes him by.

It is possible to say "I don't like 4e that much, I would've done something different" without then implying that 4e should be doing something different.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

This. There are certain elements of 4E that aren't clear until you actually play the game. Classes are NOT interchangeable --- anyone who has played in a lopsided party and a balanced party can tell you this.

It's just like AD&D --- if you don't bring a fighter, a thief, m-u and cleric ... you're screwed. This is true of any (and every) Gygaxian dungeon. Sure, once you have the major food groups, feel free to add on the thief-acrobats and cavaliers, but if you take them and exclude the core classes, you are toast.

True in AD&D. True in 4E.

Incidentally, this is where I think 3E fell down a lot - and it comes back to making certain classes superfluous via wizard substitution. You had to power up fighty classes to give them par with wizard and especially with CoDzilla. This encouraged people to create even more powerful magic-user and divine classes to maintain the perceived gap and caused a lot of power bloat.

I liked 3E a lot. Just like I liked my Playstation a lot. But I've got no reason to go back to either.

 

[Sunderstone]

I don't want to have to scrap my level 10 fighter just because the wizard has spells that make her completely superfluous.

you mean this lame meme is still flying?
It's actually better balanced this way IMHO. Early levels wizards are very weak while warriors still go on strong. Later levels Wizards get more powerful as they access stronger spells and begin balancing using Vancian casting limits while warrior types can keep up their damage all the time.

While the wizards high level thermonuclear fireball can clean out a room, the wizard is still not sturdy enough to withstand large amounts of damage. The warrior on the other hand, can.
The Wizard also will not be able to cast his Nuke every single round (again the beauty of Vancian magic).

 

[Filcher]

I was quoting Clark. Actually IMO powers are much more nuanced that that too
-nuanced in a negative way regarding the desired smoothness of the roleplaying experience on the table.

I agree with you there. It would be nice if the subtleties of the powers were a little less subtle.

But there's also the case to be made that tactical combat is a lot like chess. At low levels of mastery, anyone can beat on an orc. At high levels of mastery (here, meaning, high degree of skill in team tactics) you can pull off some serious whooping. I like this aspect.

Sorry. Off Topic. Just wanted to agree with the Xec.

 

[Filcher]

you mean this lame meme is still flying?
It's actually better balanced this way IMHO. Early levels wizards are very weak while warriors still go on strong. Later levels Wizards get more powerful as they access stronger spells and begin balancing using Vancian casting limits while warrior types can keep up their damage all the time.

While the wizards high level thermonuclear fireball can clean out a room, the wizard is still not sturdy enough to withstand large amounts of damage. The warrior on the other hand, can.
The Wizard also will not be able to cast his Nuke every single round (again the beauty of Vancian magic).

Less the warrior and more the rogue. A wizard (or sorcerer) with decent levels makes every catburglar worthless. Knock, invisibility, teleport ... yeesh.

 

[Alzrius]

Umm, it would certainly be greatly wrong to say that Clark has declared 4E a failure.
But to say "Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game", "Taking out the cheesy anime crap", "Putting back in the goodness", and "lost its soul", amongst other things is not "knocking" it seems a pretty clear loss of context in my book.

He called it a miniature game that needs to be turned BACK into a roleplaying game.
Read that again.
It is a miniature game.
As it stands, action needs to be taken to make it return to being a roleplaying game.
In other words, in its current form it falls short of being a roleplaying game.

That statement has been the breath of Satan around here. Suddenly it isn't even "knocking"? ....boggle....

QFT. Usually, a statement like that here on EN World leads to a quick flame war and an even quicker thread-closing. There are a lot of fanboys on here that do NOT like their favorite edition (whichever edition it may be) being dissed.

When Clark's the one saying it, however, then it's a lot harder to just write off. He's a giant in this industry, and he's also one of 4E's biggest supporters, so his opinion seems to garner a bit more respect (at least enough to keep this thread open...so far).

 

[Quantarum]

• Not being afraid of death and uselessness. You can't have real drama without risk.

Depends on what you mean, finding out you're "useless" can cause a lot of drama, but not the kind anyone really wants at their table.
"Real fantasy persons" reminds me of GURPs "realistic fantasy" setting. I'd grimace every time I saw that, Creating realistic, deep personalities is entirely the venue of the players. I've never seen any rule set or artifice that could turn a hand full of lines on a sheet of paper into a living, breathing soul. That alchemy is purely the effort of imagination.

-Q.