Clark Peterson on 4E

[xechnao]

Fine.

role-playing game
–noun a game in which participants adopt the roles of imaginary characters in an adventure under the direction of a Game Master.

(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006)

role-playing game
n. A game in which players assume the roles of characters and act out fantastical adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance, as by the roll of dice.

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, 2006)

Which of these definitions does D&D 4th Edition not satisfy, and in what way?

If you cannot answer this question, you cannot say that 4E is not an RPG. And therefore, Clark's opinion is, in fact, wrong.

Sorry, but I do not thing that Clark's opinion was about the general definition of what a roleplaying is but rather about the specifics of "characters" as defined by the actual game* -bold emphasis above mine. The definition you provide does not address them, yet it seems to be a most important thing.

*for example characters living with a gamey behaviour world -regarding our standards- or characters that we can map our current notion of reality regarding probable behaviours in some probable circumstances.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If we were on RPG.net, I would offer you a laugh point, if you collected them.

EN World is currently testing the vbulletin poster credit system, labeled as experience point system.. See the scales in the bottom left of each post (or the announcement on top of the forums). *hint hint*

 

[jensun]

To write up an extensive house rules document and maybe publish it to share with others who may find them of interest.

If he does want to publish and presumably sell his product then it might help if he didnt litter his post with a bunch of loaded terms apparently designed to inflame.

 

[Treebore]

Does this mean I have to give back my 4E f4nboi club card?

No, I think your just showing you accept that 4E is not the "best game" for everyone, just for you and your group.

We are gamers first, and we don't all love the same game, we just love RPG's. That is what ties us together as gamers. Not 4E, or 3E, or my C&C.

So more people need to realize that and quit jumping to defensive positions just because they don't like the words someone chose to describe how they feel about a given game.

Granted Clark could have chosen better words that may have been found less offensive, but seeing how defensive some people seem to insist on being, I can't say that with any high degree of confidence. It appears he would have been written off as a "4E HATER!!" no matter how carefully he could have chosen his words.

 

[Creamsteak]

After reading the thread, "I would totally buy that."

 

[Nikosandros]

[...] that the Sun revolves around the Earth [...]

In a frame of reference situated on the Earth, the Sun does indeed revolve around the planet... there is no such thing as absolute motion...

 

[xechnao]

If he does want to publish and presumably sell his product then it might help if he didnt litter his post with a bunch of loaded terms apparently designed to inflame.

It might not. Only the god of marketing knows the answer. Moreover, all of this might not even be intentional by his part: just his style of expression with fans of the hobby that uses a diplomacy prone to those that want to pick a fight or defend what they think they should.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If he does want to publish and presumably sell his product then it might help if he didnt litter his post with a bunch of loaded terms apparently designed to inflame.

Maybe. Unless the intended audience "likes" these terms. Or he is just failed his Diplomacy Check. Or whatever.

Is it necessary to try over the same old arguments again? Wouldn't it be more interesting to look at what substantial parts his posts contain, and where they might lead us? Or do you think that is impossible due to the mere presence or the way those loaded terms are used?

Personally I am not sure there can ever be a "D&D done right". That's a subjective thing. So the question is how would Clarks "D&D done right" variant look like? I think so far it has been all to vague, maybe intentionally so, maybe by failure of his diplomacy check. Maybe because I just don't know Clark well enough to know what he likes or dislikes (the latter is defintiely true)

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Sorry, but I do not thing that Clark's opinion was about the general definition of what a roleplaying is but rather about the specifics of "characters" as defined by the actual game* -bold emphasis above mine. The definition you provide does not address them, yet it seems to be a most important thing.

*for example characters living with a gamey behaviour world -regarding our standards- or characters that we can map our current notion of reality regarding probable behaviours in some probable circumstances.

Clark's a big boy, he can defend himself. He said nothing about characters, what he said is "changing a miniatures game back into a role-playing game." That is a statement - and a false one - because D&D 4th Edition is by any reasonably defensible definition of the term a role-playing game already.

Of the other things that he said, I find few of them attractive in any way at all. "Cheesy anime crap?" If there's a three-word phrase that REEKS of self-assumed superiority, it's that one right there (and try actually watching some anime sometime; there are a lot of anime series that can teach you more about storytelling, atmosphere and pacing than you ever realized you didn't know; I learned more about atmosphere and character from Cowboy Bebop than from some college-level classes on the subject). I've been watching anime for almost as long as I've been playing D&D and I don't see it. This has gone way too far. As far as I'm concerned, if you think my fun is badwrong, you are the one who needs an attitude adjustment.

 

[Treebore]

If he does want to publish and presumably sell his product then it might help if he didnt litter his post with a bunch of loaded terms apparently designed to inflame.

He was posting his personal opinion and his reasons for them, not a product advertisement. Plus his words will only "inflame" people who allow themselves to be inflamed by them.

He posted in a forum, his forum, where he had an expectation that we understand that he loves 4E, but sees certain things that he wants changed to make it an even better gaming experience for him. That is the "spirit" of his post, and the Necromancer regulars know this, and see this in his post.

He did not make his post to account for the over sensitivity of posters on every RPG board on the internet that his post may get linked to.

So posters can be "inflamed" if they insist, but he did not say anything with any desire to inflame anyone, just a desire to express his thoughts, freely.