Clark Peterson on 4E

[vagabundo]

"soul of DND": such a personal thing.

I believe enough changes happened in 4e to move it beyond what many consider DND. But for us the changes in the rules brought new life to our game and the strories we tell.

I will keep an eye on what happens and I wish him well.

Also hope the new GSL gets uncovered soon.

 

[xechnao]

I think it's possible to demonstrate that 4e is a role playing, using any reasonably objective definition of the term.

Theoretically you can role-play in any situation where you can relate a system or mechanism of distinct roles to distinct mechanisms of another system. From a practical point of view though, the roleplaying feeling of games as D&D is more about role playing oneself with a group of fellows in a context of wild adventure -even if that adventure dresses you like an elf or someone that is pissed off at the world even if you are not at the moment within your actual mundane environment. So the more close to our nature the mechanisms of the D&D system can map to, the higher its desired roleplaying quality. So one could say that he thinks that 4e or even 4e combat mechanisms are so far from our nature or the way we see and feel nature that it fails in roleplaying.

 

[Shroomy]

The problem is the way he says it. When you say "Imagine it done right" or that you can restore its "soul," that sounds like a "one true way" statement, because it implies that his way is the only way to get things "done right."

Exactly. I don't have a problem with Clark not liking 4e as written (or anyone else for that matter), but I do have a problem on how he expressed that opinion, especially since it seems so out of character for him. As others have noted, its like he trolled through some messageboards and found some anti-4e buzzwords to pepper his post with.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Of course it isn't. But it's still a role-playing game and saying otherwise makes you look foolish.

As soon as someone comes up with an agreed upon all-encompassing definition of what exactly a roleplaying game is, then we can determine whether or not 4E is a roleplaying game. To me, whether it is or is not is less of a question than whether 4E is D&D. To me and many, many others, it isn't. I even gave it a shot when it came out. I took the time to read the books, I played a few games. At first it was fun, but the fun quickly turned to annoyance and eventually hostility. Powers are such an overriding, annoying, and poorly conceived mechanic that I really can't believe that they went forward with it. What were they smoking? The problem is that this wouldn't even be an issue if someone would have come out with 4E under the OGL. I don't think it would have been widely embraced, there would be few proseletyzers, and it would have died the quiet death it deserves. Instead the golden age of gaming has been turned to division and conflict. Good job WotC, and thanks.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

I wonder how that would work out since Paizo would be the ones publishing such a book. Would that mean Clark does it as a small vanity press bit as I'd find it highly strange for Paizo to publish a competing game system. It's one thing to support 4e, it's quite another to publish another "old school game" to compete with Pathfinder, another "d&d done right".

 

[Keefe the Thief]

As soon as someone comes up with an agreed upon all-encompassing definition of what exactly a roleplaying game is, then we can determine whether or not 4E is a roleplaying game. To me, whether it is or is not is less of a question than whether 4E is D&D. To me and many, many others, it isn't. I even gave it a shot when it came out. I took the time to read the books, I played a few games. At first it was fun, but the fun quickly turned to annoyance and eventually hostility. Powers are such an overriding, annoying, and poorly conceived mechanic that I really can't believe that they went forward with it. What were they smoking? The problem is that this wouldn't even be an issue if someone would have come out with 4E under the OGL. I don't think it would have been widely embraced, there would be few proseletyzers, and it would have died the quiet death it deserves. Instead the golden age of gaming has been turned to division and conflict. Good job WotC, and thanks.

Didn´t you just say that more takes on D&D were a good thing in this "war" you seem determined to fight? And yet it is WotC who is responsible for the division and conflict.

 

[Halivar]

As soon as someone comes up with an agreed upon all-encompassing definition of what exactly a roleplaying game is, then we can determine whether or not 4E is a roleplaying game.

You're kidding, right? It's a game... with roleplaying. I don't understand what's so ambiguous about that. You don't like 4E; I get that. It is intellectually dishonest, however, to ex post facto define "roleplaying games" (and even "D&D") to de-subjectify your aesthetic preferences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, this doesn't add up at all.
...
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.

Look, if you want to wail and gnash teeth at Clark's supposed hypocrisy, don't let me stop you.

My reading of it is just that he's saying "I'd like to make some changes. Not that 4e NEEDS any changes, period, just that I can improve it for me, and maybe some other people would like that." Because thinking toucans are scary is not a criticism of froot loops, and thinking that, I dunno, highly stylized weapons that look like spikey flames are "anime crap" is not necessarily a criticism of 4e.

If you want to cry out about how this is double-talk by getting into semantics, I can't stop you. I think you're missing the forest for the trees, but it doesn't matter what I think since you can believe whatever you want.

I just thought maybe you would be able to see that your view might possibly need re-assessing. I held out hope for an inquisitive take, and instead have somehow made you defensive. My mistake, I guess. Didn't mean to poo in your speculative cornflakes.

 

[The Little Raven]

Didn´t you just say that more takes on D&D were a good thing in this "war" you seem determined to fight? And yet it is WotC who is responsible for the division and conflict.

What's funny is that he basically says it would be a golden age of gaming, if WotC's D&D failed entirely because it "deserves" to fail.

The fact that he calls it a "war" and becomes openly hostile because of a book tells me that the problem definitely lies with someone other that WotC. I can understand developing hostility from a book like Mein Kampf or Pat Buchanan's Death of the West (as they are writings that are based on hostility), but from a roleplaying game book? To me, that implies a deep seated issue with the reader.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mein Kampf

Ladies and Gentlemen, the thread is over!!!!!