Clark Peterson on 4E

[Firevalkyrie]

Uhm...I just wanted to ask...where is this "wrong way fun" thing coming from you keep bringing up. After reading through the thread... I don't see it.

See post immediately prior to this one. The idea that D&D is a platonic ideal - that anything that moves further from one's preferred earlier edition is a corruption, and anything that moves back toward it is a perfection.

 

[Sunderstone]

I don't agree with you here. Mechanically AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition and 3rd edition were mechanically different BUT, if you read spell descriptions, magic item descriptions, racial descriptions and class descriptions you'd see that the flavor was largely unchanged.

With each new edition, the classes and racial were adapted to better fit the current rule mechanics and, over time (from AD&D to UA to 2nd edition to 3rd edition) , restrictions on races were decreased and non-combat options were expanded upon.

4th edition, to me, threw much of D&D's background out of the window in the attempt to freshen up the game (by breaking free of many classic D&D tropes) and translate it to a new audience. In the process it lost me and EVERY gamer I have ever gamed with (about 20 people).

Agreed.

 

[Imaro]

Going back to what Clark said originally, the problem with the whole idea is that it presents "Dungeons & Dragons" not as a game that can be revised and altered to incorporate new ideas and new means of storytelling - see the whole ugly hue and cry when D&D Insider was announced - but as a Platonic ideal from which any deviation is inherently a corruption.

D&D is not a Platonic ideal. Gary might be dead but he's not a god. The 3.5 books are not the Holy Bible, nor is the original Brown Box the Ark of the Covenant. They are games. They are fun and interesting games, but that is all that they are. They can - and should - be revised, altered and reinterpreted. They should be revisited and changed.

Yeah, I get all that...but you seem angry that Clark and other posters have a different view on what constitutes revising, altering and reinterpreting for the betterment of the game than the designers at WotC had. On the one hand you cry don't use badwrongfun ... and at the same time claim wanting a game that plays closer or with the troupes of 1e (yet still maintains some of the 4e isms) should be chalked up to rose colored glasses of nostalgia... instead of people enjoying and having fun with that playstyle or feel. It just seems a little hypocritical.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I finally read through the original thread on the Necro forums. This is crazy blown out of proportion over here. I can see where Clark is coming from and a lot of things he mentions I would like to see added back into 4e. I just don't know about running a variant 4e. We tried that before and it just didn't stick. If this did become a product, I probably would buy it just out of curiosity.

I think I know what he means about a Ranger shooting two arrows from his bow at first level. I don't think Clark has a problem with that eventually happening, I think he has a problem with a Ranger of 1st level doing that. So I think it's a power curve thing. Which I wouldn't mind seeing changed at the lower end, and adding crazier stuff at high level.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Yeah, I get all that...but you seem angry that Clark and other posters have a different view on what constitutes revising, altering and reinterpreting for the betterment of the game than the designers at WotC had. On the one hand you cry don't use badwrongfun ... and at the same time claim wanting a game that plays closer or with the troupes of 1e (yet still maintains some of the 4e isms) should be chalked up to rose colored glasses of nostalgia... instead of people enjoying and having fun with that playstyle or feel. It just seems a little hypocritical.

If Clark had said what you say he said, that's not a problem. But what he said, essentially, was "*sigh* I guess we'll have to just fix what those simpleminded idiots at WotC broke so that real D&D can be resurrected," along with numerous references to some "soul" of D&D that was somehow lost. The soul of D&D comes from what you do with it at the table; unless there is some WotC Ninja Squad I'm not aware of, that hasn't changed. And That is what made me angry because it's laden with value judgment over what version of D&D is "correct" and over what constitutes "real D&D" - the very same value judgment that people have been trying to push since 4th Edition was announced last August. And for personal reasons I'm not going to go into (it's out there, you can find out if you're really interested), I'm more than a little touchy about it when other people insist on saying that their version of reality is more real than mine.

I have not at any time said that older D&D versions are not real D&D and if I implied it, I apologize, because it was unintentional. But at the same time, those same people who are taking such Deep and Serious Offense over my words are the same ones who are implicitly accusing me of being a Narutard.

EDIT: IOW, it's not that Clark is doing a variant rules set that's the problem. A greater number of meaningful options is always better than a smaller number of options, or a greater number of meaningless options, all else being equal. The problem is that he's touting his variant rules set as "real D&D," which continues a dichotomy where the official rules set is "fake D&D."

 

[Delta]

I look at those retro gamers with the same jaundiced eye that I look at retro RP gamers who say that their favorite version of D&D is the One True Game, and anything else is desecrating their rose-tinted memories and Gary's corpse.

I will also back up what Nikos said earlier. I have several friends (now in their 40's) who were introduced to 3E for about a year and were like, "meh" and left the game. The I introduced them independently to old-school gaming and their response was (direct quote) "Wow! Now that's what D&D should be like!"

So the whole rose-tinted/nostolgia trope is really a straw-man argument, from what I can tell.

 

[Nikosandros]

If you like it? Great. But don't arrogate yourself to tell me that I'm having fun the wrong way.

You are the one who is telling me and others that we are mistaken in liking old versions of D&D, certainly not the other way around. Especially since I'm currently running 4e.

 

[JeffB]

Seriously, you can't see how making your own, personal tastes the arbiter of GoodRightFun in video games is the same kettle of fish as making your own personal tastes the arbiter of GoodRightFun in roleplaying games?

WHAT?

Heres what went down in this thread

1) someone stated Clark would look like a crusty old man to the Under 21 anime crowd- and implied this WAS Clark's target audience

2) I stated that I don't feel that the under 21 anime crowd is clark's target market at all. I tell you that I don't think that it matters that you don't care for Clark's target audience, just that it is, what it is-

3) Next thing is you go off on some nonsense about video games and seem to be implying that Clark's target audience SHOULD be the under 21 anime crowd? (I think?)

4) And now you go off some more about "dont tell me how to play my game"



What the F are you talking about ?

 

[Imaro]

WHAT?

Heres what went down in this thread

1) someone stated Clark would look like a crusty old man to the Under 21 anime crowd- and implied this WAS Clark's target audience

2) I stated that I don't feel that the under 21 anime crowd is clark's target market at all. I tell you that I don't think that it matters that you don't care for Clark's target audience, just that it is, what it is-

3) Next thing is you go off on some nonsense about video games and seem to be implying that Clark's target audience SHOULD be the under 21 anime crowd? (I think?)

4) And now you go off some more about "dont tell me how to play my game"



What the F are you talking about ?

Yeah, this was what I was trying to get at...just a little more subtly...

 

[Nikosandros]

I have several friends (now in their 40's) who were introduced to 3E for about a year and were like, "meh" and left the game. The I introduced them independently to old-school gaming and their response was (direct quote) "Wow! Now that's what D&D should be like!"

So the whole rose-tinted/nostolgia trope is really a straw-man argument, from what I can tell.

Exactly. Those same players that liked AD&D a lot are also people that grew tired of 3e.

Once again, certainly not representative of the majority of gamers, but true none the less.