Clark Peterson on 4E

[xechnao]

You're kidding, right? It's a game... with roleplaying. I don't understand what 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.

"It is a game with roleplayiing" tells nothing concrete actually about the roleplaying experience (Wotc calls it the D&D experience) and can be very ambiguous as anyone can name whatever game experience he wishes a roleplaying game. And 4e is not a tradition yet and it can not claim that it belongs to a certain tradition.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

Your Froot Loops analogy is completely flawed. Toucan Sam is the marketing vehicle for the product, Froot Loops. He is not the product itself. Clark's criticism isn't directed at Toucan Sam (aka marketing), it's directed at Froot Loops (aka the game itself).

He's saying that the taste of Froot Loops is bad enough that he feels the need to make Froot Loops, but "done right."

And in what world do you live in where phrases like "Somewhere along the way, it lost its soul." and "Imagine it done right." are not a criticism?

I just thought maybe you would be able to see that your view might possibly need re-assessing.

No, my view doesn't need re-assessing. I read his posts carefully, several times, before I posted.

My mistake, I guess.

Your mistake was making the ridiculous claim that his obvious criticism are not criticisms, based solely on his claim that they aren't. It's like me calling someone a moron, then claiming a few sentences later that calling him a moron isn't an insult. My claim that it isn't an insult doesn't change the fact that I insulted him. Anyone backing me to up to claim that my insult wasn't really an insult would be just as wrong as I would be.

 

[Nikosandros]

You're kidding, right? It's a game... with roleplaying.

Yep. You take the role of an imaginary character and react to the environment (as described by the DM) and the actions of other characters played by other players...

I feel that it's a radical departure from D&D. I want to play for far more that what I've done so far, to figure out how much I really dig it... but I find it very hard to claim that it isn't a RPG, even with its highly tactical and formalized combat rules.

 

[joethelawyer]

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

my thoughts exactly, depending on what 4e elements he wants to add, and if wotc would go after him for adding those elements. he may be better off making a pathfinder add-on which makes pathfinder compatible with 4e, if possible.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your Froot Loops analogy is completely flawed. Toucan Sam is the marketing vehicle for the product, Froot Loops. He is not the product itself. Clark's criticism isn't directed at Toucan Sam (aka marketing), it's directed at Froot Loops (aka the game itself).

See, that's where your reading differs from mine. By Clark saying "anime crap," I assumed he was referring to one or two things. 1 being the art. 2 being the "high fantasy" feel of many of the (especially martial) powers. I think 1 was the stronger contender, being that Anime is a primarily visual medium, but that 2 was also a possibility.

Art is not "the product itself." Art is an aspect of the look and feel of the product (the product's marketing). Therefore, the comparison is entirely valid if he was referring to art.

Of course, he may have been exclusively referring to 2. The "high fantasy" feel of the powers is also an element of the feel and dynamics of the product. They do not represent the entirety of the product, either. Like the picture on the box, they are not the whole of the thing, but they are part of the thing's experience.

Whether or not that stuff is "anime crap" (and whether "anime crap" is negative) is pretty subjective, and the fact that it is subjective means that it is not a really a charge levied against the edition (nor, even if it were objective, and objectively negative, does it invalidate other aspects of the game).

Your mistake was making the ridiculous claim that his obvious criticism are not criticisms, based solely on his claim that they aren't. It's like me calling someone a moron, then claiming a few sentences later that calling him a moron isn't an insult. My claim that it isn't an insult doesn't change the fact that I insulted him. Anyone backing me to up to claim that my insult wasn't really an insult would be just as wrong as I would be.

I call my friends morons all the time, and they're not insulted in the slightest. Even if they were doing something moronic at the time.

Language and meaning are not pure creatures, and the waters are muddied all the more without context clues such as body language and intonation.

But perhaps my continued optimism that you will have curiosity and self-questioning in this conversation where I am reading you as clearly defensive is misplaced. Ah well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Your mistake was making the ridiculous claim that his obvious criticism are not criticisms, based solely on his claim that they aren't. It's like me calling someone a moron, then claiming a few sentences later that calling him a moron isn't an insult. My claim that it isn't an insult doesn't change the fact that I insulted him. Anyone backing me to up to claim that my insult wasn't really an insult would be just as wrong as I would be.

How about an inverted example.

"The Little Mourn Formerly Known as Raven is a smart, well-reasoned poster, and reminds me very much of Harakiri Dwarf.

I am not intending to claim that The Little Mourn Formerly Known as Raven is a smart poster, well-reasoned poster and reminds me of Harakiri Dwarf."

Though my real point would be - why keep talking about this specific aspect. Keep in mind that message board posts - even if we like to construe them as such - are not contracts or representing a law system. It's not uncommon for me to correct and edit my post, sometimes making it more consistent and wel-put, sometimes making it worse. I would assume the same applies for Clark, even if he is a lawyer by profession.

So, instead of focusing on the fiddly bits of his remarks, focus on discussing the actual merits of what he is talking about. Does it sound interesting? Why doesn't it? Is he correct in the flaws he describes or things he'd like to change?

 

[Halivar]

"It is a game with roleplayiing" tells nothing concrete actually about the roleplaying experience

Probably because it has nothing to do with whether or not it's a roleplaying game in the first place. You don't have to have a certain "experience" to qualify as an RPG. You just need to have players playing a game, pretending to be people they aren't. "Roleplaying experience" (and even "the D&D experience") is a completely ethereal concept; any definition is subjective and arbitrary, and not useful for discussing the merits of any particular system.

 

[Angrydad]

It was a class comparison.

Aside from that, why roll a Wizard if you want to play the Rogue type to begin with?
My players wouldnt do this, and are not big on creating/buying items to duplicate this either. They would rather have another player or henchman npc to roleplay with/against.

I'm with Sunderstone on this. If you want to have a sneaky/stealthy type character, why the heck would you play a wizard? With the right selection of spells a wizard can be nigh indetectable, but it only lasts for a while and he needs to prepare for the situation well in advance. Just play a rogue. You can use any of your sneaky skills whenever you want without any prep time or planning. Plus, you get evasion, sneak attacks, better HD, better BAB, etc.

On a related note, I still think people are slagging fighter types unnecessarily. If your 10+ level fighter is now useless in the party because you have a wizard, then you aren't playing to the strengths of the fighter. And you're ignoring the fact that fighters can use any of their feats and attacks at any time. In all my experience (16+ years of mostly DMing), the fighter is only useless if the monster's AC is absurdly high, and if your fighter can't hit the monster except on a crit, then you might want to run case the critter is likely to also have spell resistance. I dunno, I just think that wizards aren't quite as overbalanced as so many people on the forums here complain they are.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Yep. You take the role of an imaginary character and react to the environment (as described by the DM) and the actions of other characters played by other players...

So is Monopoly. Is Monopoly a roleplaying game? Why or why not?

I feel that it's a radical departure from D&D. I want to play for far more that what I've done so far, to figure out how much I really dig it... but I find it very hard to claim that it isn't a RPG, even with its highly tactical and formalized combat rules.

I agree with everything but the bit about wanting to play it more. I already know that answer, so now the real question is whether I should sell the books..... or feed them to the woodchipper.

My previous post was not to claim that it wasn't a roleplaying game. It is on some level, though it is clearly regressing farther and farther back towards the tabletop tactical strategy games that originally gave birth to it. My point was that we don't have a standard definition of what a roleplaying game is, so its hard to argue that one way or the other. What can be more easily argued is whether or not its D&D. On that point, I think most people agree that its a new game that bears little resemblance to its predecessors. They really should have just called it something else.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So is Monopoly. Is Monopoly a roleplaying game? Why or why not?



I agree with everything but the bit about wanting to play it more. I already know that answer, so now the real question is whether I should sell the books..... or feed them to the woodchipper.

My previous post was not to claim that it wasn't a roleplaying game. It is on some level, though it is clearly regressing farther and farther back towards the tabletop tactical strategy games that originally gave birth to it. My point was that we don't have a standard definition of what a roleplaying game is, so its hard to argue that one way or the other. What can be more easily argued is whether or not its D&D. On that point, I think most people agree that its a new game that bears little resemblance to its predecessors. They really should have just called it something else.

Give the books to some soldiers in Iraq. Why waste them?