Clark Peterson on 4E

[The Little Raven]

I'm saying that him saying "this isn't a criticism of 4e" probably means that he wouldn't change 4e if he had the chance, that 4e is fine as it is, and that just because he has personal feelings about what he would see doesn't mean that 4e is wrong or bad or negative in any way.

See, this doesn't add up at all.

Saying you could actually do something right, or restore the "soul" (which is a direct claim that the "soul" of the game is missing in 4e) is definitely an indication that he would change 4e if he had the chance. He wouldn't be proposed a "4e done right" if he didn't feel that 4e should be changed... because then that would just be the "mortal sin" of "change for change's sake."

He's not saying 4e is horrible because it has too much anime crap and is thus unworthy of any love.

No, he's just saying that if it was "done right" it'd have all that "cheesy anime crap" stripped out, which is definitely a judgment on what he perceives as the faults of the system.

It sounded like he was spitballing, talking amongst friends, not making an argument so much as expressing a feeling, and very much qualifying that feeling by saying that it's not a real criticism.

I could insult people then claim it's not an insult. It doesn't change what it is.

Personal feelings, after all, usually aren't criticism.

They are when they criticize a work as having lost its "soul" or that his incarnation would be it "done right."

It's the internet, mang. If you're arguing about "what criticism is," you've probably taken the comment too seriously all ready.

Criticism is the act of criticizing. Criticizing is either (a) considering the merits/faults and judging accordingly or (b) finding fault with the item.

By looking at the product and telling people to "imagine it done right" or that it doesn't have the "soul" of previous editions, he is definitely criticizing it.

 

[xechnao]

This is so bizarre. People are entitled to their own opinions and to change their minds, but I never expected this. Clark has changed his stance to many times that at this point I wouldn't be surprised to see Clark say that he loves 4e and he thinks its the best edition ever. It sucks that Necromancer won't be doing core 4e stuff, but I pretty much got over that after the last announcement. Best of luck Clark. I hope you produce stuff that I like and I want to buy.

What he has said in the past is that the best thing to do for the D&D hobby is to support the newest edition. But I can understand that one to be able to offer the better support, he has to be able to align it with his own interests the more possibly he can. It seems it is both an economic (GSL) and entertainment argument to him (4E) that amounts to the loss of his personal interest. So he thinks he could do better in the current situation by creating a product that reflects his own mental relevancies. So here, you have to see how much you trust Clark's ideas with the system: not that he has been changing his stance which is a normal thing.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Clark has the right idea. I'm really not sure why he wants to make another variant, but I'd rather see a thousand variants than continued acceptance of the impostor that now dresses itself up in D&D clothing and calls itself king. I'm fully behind Pathfinder, but I'll buy Clark's game if he publishes it under the OGL, as a show of support for true open gaming.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Best flavor reskin ever: in my Wednesday night game, one of my players introduced his new fey-pact warlock as a voodoo shaman. He replaced "eldritch blast" with "stab dee voodoo doll wit dee pact blade, mon." The flavor text is, IMHO, only an example* of how it can work. The mechanics are a skeleton, and we drape our own fluff on it.

*That may not be how WotC intended it, but it's how I use it.

So true. The WotC flavour text writers are indeed in love with pyrotechnics shooting out of your fingers, especially for the non-martial classes. Which is perhaps compelling for some, but not for all.

This is why in my group the paladin, for example, is "skinned" as very mundane character. Divine stuff "just happens", without glowy special effects. Whereas the warlock in my group is a walking CGI studio. Both players enjoy their respective style, and I like that. Though personally, I tend towards the less flashy desciptions.

Cheers, LT.

 

[xechnao]

it would require those people to actually purchase 4e in order to use the supplement.

You don't know this. Unless I missed something?

 

[xechnao]

What you interpret from it and what he is writing are two different things, and I tend to assume you're reading what you want to read.
if it is what he means to say, he is wrong (as wrong as a subjective opinion can be - it might be true for him, it isn't for me).

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.

 

[The Little Raven]

You don't know this. Unless I missed something?

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.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Clark has the right idea. I'm really not sure why he wants to make another variant, but I'd rather see a thousand variants than continued acceptance of the impostor that now dresses itself up in D&D clothing and calls itself king. I'm fully behind Pathfinder, but I'll buy Clark's game if he publishes it under the OGL, as a show of support for true open gaming.

And how do you know Clark's version is going to be that open? For example, Arcana Evolved is a great OGL book but open it's not. Tome of Horrors is a great example of open, but not all the follow up books are that open.

 

[Darrin Drader]

And how do you know Clark's version is going to be that open? For example, Arcana Evolved is a great OGL book but open it's not. Tome of Horrors is a great example of open, but not all the follow up books are that open.

I believe my use of the word "IF" precludes my claiming to know anything about Clark's plans. Odds are good that it will be mostly open, however, because he'll want as many people as possible to support it. 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.

 

[xechnao]

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.

You are stretchingly nit-picking here. Let's be more practical. How could he possibly make a 4e requiring product considering the changes he is talking about? He is talking about a different game. Name it 3.75 or whatever you like, I personally did not even imagine after reading Clark's comments about said requirement.