# Clark Peterson on 4E



## Korgoth (Oct 4, 2008)

1st Edition AD&D - General Discussion - General - Necromancer Games - Message Board - Yuku

I didn't see anyone comment on this. I hope we can discuss Clark's comments without a flamewar.

Basically, Clark says that "[4E] just isn't D&D to me".

His notion is to come up with a '4E that is still D&D'. Myself, I question whether this is necessary. Clark's favorite flavor of D&D is evidently 1E. I call that a respectable choice. So the question is... especially with OSRIC, the OGL and the resurgence of interest in old school gaming... why doesn't Necromancer just do 1E products and get it over with?

I'd be interested in their stuff if it wasn't written for new school systems.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

He still says Necro wants to support 4e, of course.  

I think the basic idea is that 4e (and 3e and 2e) all have good ideas that one can poach and still remain faithful to what made first edition feel right. Certainly I think the ToH series is a BRILLIANT example of that.

The major weirdness is the GSL (still). It's not that surprising that he thinks 4e has lost a lot of what made the game "special." It's the first time (since maybe 2e) that the game has cut ties with everything that has gone before in an effort for broader populist appeal. It's not like 4e probably can't be forced to accommodate it, though. And in the process, he makes 4e better, which is good for everyone playing. 

....if only the GSL wasn't still insane. How long ago was Gen Con? *grumble*


----------



## Treebore (Oct 4, 2008)

He isn't the only one who thinks 4E is "meh", or missing "something". So if Clark can come up with a way to give 4E whatever is missing he may increase the popularity of 4E. Lets face it, not everyone is falling in love with 4E.

So if he can come up with stuff that helps even more people play 4E, that is a good thing. Who knows, maybe Necromancer will be the "Malhavoc" of 4E.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Clark's favorite flavor of D&D is evidently 1E. I call that a respectable choice. So the question is... especially with OSRIC, the OGL and the resurgence of interest in old school gaming... why doesn't Necromancer just do 1E products and get it over with?




Mostly because Clark believes very strongly in supporting D&D unto itself, which means supporting the "active" edition. He's always been very firm on this point. He may not like the state of the GSL, and he may not think that the current game feels like D&D, but he still wants to support it. Hence, a variant that uses the current edition, but changes it enough to feel like D&D again.

I'm quite interested to see what he comes up with. Now the trick will be whether or not the revised GSL (if that happens) lets him do that.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 4, 2008)

I don't have much to say besides that is a very admirable view, to put the support of the community and D&D in general infront of personal opinion.


----------



## Terramotus (Oct 4, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I don't have much to say besides that is a very admirable view, to put the support of the community and D&D in general infront of personal opinion.



I'm pretty sure the miniscule market for 1E material has something to do with it as well.  3rd party material will always sell to a fraction of the total market.  The total market for 1E material is vastly smaller than 4E, as is, I'm sure the 3E market.

Besides that, even if we grant a market for older editions being large enough to support a publisher, how many of those people still playing the other editions (3E excepted) will still be looking for new product on the shelves?


----------



## cougent (Oct 4, 2008)

Treebore said:


> He isn't the only one who thinks 4E is "meh", or missing "something". So if Clark can come up with a way to give 4E whatever is missing he may increase the popularity of 4E. Lets face it, not everyone is falling in love with 4E.
> 
> So if he can come up with stuff that helps even more people play 4E, that is a good thing. Who knows, maybe Necromancer will be the "Malhavoc" of 4E.



THIS!

And Clark's post as well pretty much sum up my feelings.

I have no hatred of 4E, but no love for it either.  As it exists now, I won't be going to it.  If Necro writes a variant that I like then I might down the road.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 4, 2008)

I can respect positions like this, though in the end I think they are pointless unless they carry with them some "harder" evidence.

Someone can tell me "4e doesn't feel like dnd". But without a why, its hard to find a fix...unless the fix is to return to the "true dnd" and then create a new version from there.


----------



## Arawn76 (Oct 4, 2008)

As I said on the Necro boards I'm a little sad he's going this route.  I was looking forward to a 4E with 1E feel product line from Clark.

Not his fault mind Wotc's dicking around has probably put many projects on back burner or in the reject bin.

I'll have a look at what he produces but in all honesty I can't see any reason to buy a D&D clone.  I did that with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and a handful of others and all I did was mine them for ideas.  They just had too little product support and not enough real variation to warrant playing them over the original.

And Vancian magic


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Oct 4, 2008)

I'd be very interested to check it out if it does happen (though I can't forsee WoTC opening up the GSL to let Necromancer do anything of the sort). I'd love to see a system that keeps most of the core of 4e, but chucks out the power system and replaces it with separate subsystems for each class, just as we had in 3.x and now Pathfinder. It sounds a little like that's what Clark is getting at (at least when it comes to wizards).
I also agree with Clark in that it would be nice to see the end of the relentless focus on battlemat manoeuvre and a return to 'feet' rather than 'squares'.
In any case, I'm all for having more options, and Necro has a pretty good history at putting out the kinds of products I like. So bring it on!


----------



## Raith5 (Oct 4, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> I can respect positions like this, though in the end I think they are pointless unless they carry with them some "harder" evidence.
> 
> Someone can tell me "4e doesn't feel like dnd". But without a why, its hard to find a fix...unless the fix is to return to the "true dnd" and then create a new version from there.





Yeah absolutely.

It may be the case that small house rules could add the 'missing' flavour but without more specific criticisms it is impossible to tell.


----------



## Gundark (Oct 4, 2008)

I'm really confused with this behaviour...going from 4e supporter and apparently quite excited for 4e to "4e isn't D&D"

edit...nm after reading what he actually said instead of what people in the thread gave me the impression he said. 

Meh...all power to him


----------



## scruffygrognard (Oct 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I didn't see anyone comment on this. I hope we can discuss Clark's comments without a flamewar.
> 
> Basically, Clark says that "[4E] just isn't D&D to me".
> 
> ...




Bless Clark's geeky heart!

I REALLY hope that he pulls it off as I feel that 3rd edition is way too complicated at high levels to be tons o' fun but really don't look at 4th edition as D&D.  

My group has played it a few times and, while we enjoyed it as a tactical boardgame, we didn't "feel the love" for it in ANY way.  It changed the core of the game far too much for us to consider it the next iteration of the world's most famous rpg.

I'm just being honest and don't wish to offend any who like 4th edition but all 6 players in my regular Saturday group were left scratching their heads wondering if all htat we saw of 4th edition was all that it had to offer...


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 4, 2008)

Very interesting indeed. Almost makes me hope that WotC doesn't come through with a decent GSL.


----------



## Neil Bishop (Oct 4, 2008)

This is strange. I can remember at least really one positive post about 4E prior to its release... and now this. Oh well, everyone is entitled to change their mind.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 4, 2008)

Neil Bishop said:


> This is strange. I can remember at least really one positive post about 4E prior to its release... and now this. Oh well, everyone is entitled to change their mind.




You should read the thread. Clark is very positive about many aspects of 4e, and he still wants to suppport 4e. He does however, feel that 4e could be done better.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> You should read the thread. Clark is very positive about many aspects of 4e, and he still wants to suppport 4e. He does however, feel that 4e could be done better.



Sorry, that's too much nuance for a discussion board.  We're at war people.  Pick a side.


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 4, 2008)

You guys missed this part.



> Look, this is not a product announcement. It isnt anything yet. It is me and Bill and Scott talking. And I threw the idea at Mona just briefly.
> 
> There is no GSL. I am bored. I wanted something to work on. So I decided to do this. It is just me screwing around.
> 
> ...


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 4, 2008)

TheSleepyKing said:


> I'd be very interested to check it out if it does happen (though I can't forsee WoTC opening up the GSL to let Necromancer do anything of the sort). I'd love to see a system that keeps most of the core of 4e, but chucks out the power system and replaces it with separate subsystems for each class, just as we had in 3.x and now Pathfinder. It sounds a little like that's what Clark is getting at (at least when it comes to wizards).




You lost me at "separate subsystems."


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 4, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> You guys missed this part.



Yeah, but then he followed up with:


			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I'll be honest, I am writing it right now. Whether all it will ever be is an intellectual exercise for me and a set of house rules in a big binder, that remains to be seen.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 4, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Sorry, that's too much nuance for a discussion board.  We're at war people.  Pick a side.




Sorry, my secretary didn't give me the memo..



Philotomy Jurament said:


> Yeah, but then he followed up with:




I am not sure what your point is. The comments are pretty clear. Clark will support 4e if he gets a GSL that works for him. But he also things that 4e could be improved in some areas, so we might see an alternate version (or however you want to define what Clark writes about) from him.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, my secretary didn't give me the memo..



Shame on your secretary! 


Jack99 said:


> I am not sure what your point is. The comments are pretty clear. Clark will support 4e if he gets a GSL that works for him. But he also things that 4e could be improved in some areas, so we might see an alternate version (or however you want to define what Clark writes about) from him.



Seems like a fair assessment of what he wrote.

He feels that 4e isn't really D&D any more (I sentiment I happen to agree with, even though I think that it's a fine game) and he's working on a variant D&D that will however use several ideas from 4E. 

However, from a business perspective, he'd rather support the current game from WotC and he's still hoping that the GSL will be revised in the near future.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Oct 4, 2008)

This is interesting. I have to agree with Clark, 4e is a good game, but is missing something that is the soul of D&D. And it's not something that can really be quantified, it's more the 'feel' than anything else.

Perhaps, this is the thing that has so many people comparing 4e to board games, video games or CCGs. It's more of the feel of the game than any specific rule or mechanic.

I run a 4e game and enjoy it... but, I'm just not, as someone else put it, 'in love' with the system. I know many are and that's great, but for me something is lacking.

I'll be very interested in seeing what (if anything) Clark comes up with. I think that the D&D he is looking for is very similar to the D&D I want.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I am not sure what your point is. The comments are pretty clear. Clark will support 4e if he gets a GSL that works for him. But he also things that 4e could be improved in some areas, so we might see an alternate version (or however you want to define what Clark writes about) from him.




He also said







			
				clark said:
			
		

> Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul.



It sounds like the definition of "some areas" is important.

I completely agree that there are some really great things about 4e.  But you really can't take an RPG in pieces.  It is the final package that counts.  And did that package maintain its soul?

Edit: To put it another way:  if *I* had said the exact same things, no one would say the glass was half full.  They'd just call me a "hater".


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 4, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Edit: To put it another way:  if *I* had said the exact same things, no one would say the glass was half full.  They'd just call me a "hater".




^this.

In any event, if it comes to pass Id pick it up but I wouldnt use it myself. Im not looking for yet another totally new system, and Necromancer's module support (for busy people like me that dont have time to make our own) has been less than stellar after the initial 3E boom.

Id still pick up the initial rules because it's Clark and Necro  .


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2008)

As I often find with such statements, I find it difficult to grasp exactly what it is  he means by "it isn't D&D".  I cannot tell what he thinks the "soul of D&D" is, so I cannot really comment on whether I think it's a good direction for him to go in, or whether the result is something that I would think is more D&D than 4e.

Good luck to him on his project, though.


----------



## thundershot (Oct 4, 2008)

Wow. He was one of the biggest 4E "cheerleaders" and now this. While I'm perfectly content with 4E the way it is, I hope this doesn't affect whatever 4E monster book comes out from them. I want it fully compatable with the rest of my 4E without having to adjust things like XP or levels or whatever. I don't want a new version of 4E... so I guess I'm just not the target audience. I wish him luck...


Chris

EDIT: After reading the rest of the thread, I really don't like what the direction that's being insinuated. I hope other people do... but it's just not for me at all. I was really hoping to support Necromancer, but not if this is what they're putting out. Again, good luck. It's been a fun ride, but alas, it's time for me to get off of the ride... Of course, this could all mean nothing if they put the damn GSL out so they can get to making 4E compatible products for me.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 4, 2008)

Umbran said:


> As I often find with such statements, I find it difficult to grasp exactly what it is  he means by "it isn't D&D".  I cannot tell what he thinks the "soul of D&D" is, so I cannot really comment on whether I think it's a good direction for him to go in, or whether the result is something that I would think is more D&D than 4e.



It means that it is a wholly different game, like Rolemaster is, at least for me.


----------



## Toben the Many (Oct 4, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> I can respect positions like this, though in the end I think they are pointless unless they carry with them some "harder" evidence.
> 
> Someone can tell me "4e doesn't feel like dnd". But without a why, its hard to find a fix...unless the fix is to return to the "true dnd" and then create a new version from there.




As to *why* the answer is both simple and complex. 

The simple answer as to why 4e doesn't feel like D&D to many individuals is because too many sacred cows were changed in D&D *for them*. I'm sure there will be many people who will respond here and say, "The sacred cows are all still there!" Well, they're not. That's okay, but you can't say that all of the same sacred cows of D&D are there.

Some of the sacred cows I'm talking about are things like, but not limited to:

Rolling for hitpoints.
Different to-hit modifiers for different classes.
Radically different hitpoints between the classes.
Saving throws, not defenses.
Vancian magic. Yes, Vancian magic.
Not everything ability being a combat option. For example, _disguise self_ or the Ranger's _animal empathy_.

The list above are just examples. I'm sure I'm missing plenty and there will be people who argue that X is not a sacred cow. Nonetheless, they do indeed exist. 

Now the reason that this gets complicated is because the breaking point for everyone is different. Changing saving throws to Defenses might have _some_ people crying, "No! You've changed too much!" and it might have others shrugging and saying, "Eh. No big deal." or "I like it!"

For those people who are 4e fans, the breaking point was never reached. Or there was never any breaking point at all, so long as the game was still about kicking in the door, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. 

So, it's perfectly understandable for there to be a complete disconnect between the various players of the game. Some will say too much has changed, others are okay with it. But what people are responding to when they say, "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" are those sacred cows that I was talking about.


----------



## Toben the Many (Oct 4, 2008)

thundershot said:


> Wow. He was one of the biggest 4E "cheerleaders" and now this. While I'm perfectly content with 4E the way it is, I hope this doesn't affect whatever 4E monster book comes out from them. I want it fully compatable with the rest of my 4E without having to adjust things like XP or levels or whatever. I don't want a new version of 4E... so I guess I'm just not the target audience. I wish him luck...




I think that goes to show you something, eh?  The D&D audience has certainly splintered. I don't think that 4e is doing badly or anything like that - but not everyone is jumping onboard like they did with d20. 



> EDIT: After reading the rest of the thread, I really don't like what the direction that's being insinuated. I hope other people do... but it's just not for me at all. I was really hoping to support Necromancer, but not if this is what they're putting out. Again, good luck. It's been a fun ride, but alas, it's time for me to get off of the ride... Of course, this could all mean nothing if they put the damn GSL out so they can get to making 4E compatible products for me.




I really wouldn't worry too much. I sounds like Necromancer is going to release some "regulation" 4e stuff but also work on an alternative system on the side. That's all.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> It means that it is a wholly different game, like Rolemaster is, at least for me.




Setting aside that what it means for you doesn't help me understand Orcus, here 

What you say doesn't really give me any information.  You see, from where I sit, every major edition change has been a "wholly different game" - 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e - all wholly different in my own estimations.  Thus, I have learned nothing about the specific issues he may have, or in what direction his rewrite would go.


----------



## Grimstaff (Oct 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Basically, Clark says that "[4E] just isn't D&D to me".




Context Alert! 

Some folks seem to be thinking this means - "Necro doesn't like 4E"


In fact, he's not knocking 4E - that's just what Necromancer games does - they help promote old-school feel under the currently supported version of D&D. Its what they did for 3E, and what they would be doing already for 4E if the GSL were friendlier.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 4, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Setting aside that what it means for you doesn't help me understand Orcus, here



Of course... and I realize that what I think is also far less relevant... 


Umbran said:


> What you say doesn't really give me any information.  You see, from where I sit, every major edition change has been a "wholly different game" - 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e - all wholly different in my own estimations.  Thus, I have learned nothing about the specific issues he may have, or in what direction his rewrite would go.



The two editions of AD&D are basically the same game. Even BD&D and AD&D are rather close. I recently run B2 for AD&D with basically very little conversion all done on the fly.

3e is another story... it has many of the trappings of D&D, but the more I played it, the more it felt like a different system, but a related one.

4e, for me, is a whole new game.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 4, 2008)

I don't usually buy 3PP content. I bought APG because Mouse gave me confidence that he was passionate about the product he made.

What I perceive Clark as saying here is that, if/when he makes 4E content, he'll be doing without any passion whatsoever.

I'll pass.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Halivar said:


> What I perceive Clark as saying here is that, if/when he makes 4E content, he'll be doing without any passion whatsoever.
> 
> I'll pass.




That's kinda what I got. Also, it seems that his passion is directed towards making a good deal of my 4e core books useless by rewriting a lot. I was intending to pick up some Necromancer Games 4e materials, specifically the Advanced Player's Guide, but now it sounds like they won't be making things to expand 4e, but things to try and replace a lot of it, so I'm not really interested.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 4, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Context Alert!
> 
> Some folks seem to be thinking this means - "Necro doesn't like 4E"
> 
> ...



Umm, it would certainly be greatly wrong to say that Clark has declared 4E a failure.  
But to say "Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game", "Taking out the cheesy anime crap", "Putting back in the goodness", and "lost its soul", amongst other things is not "knocking" it seems a pretty clear loss of context in my book.

He called it a miniature game that needs to be turned BACK into a roleplaying game.  
Read that again.
It is a miniature game.  
As it stands, action needs to be taken to make it return to being a roleplaying game.
In other words, in its current form it falls short of being a roleplaying game.

That statement has been the breath of Satan around here.  Suddenly it isn't even "knocking"?  ....boggle....

Does that mean Clark is saying you can not roleplay with it?  Hell no.  It wouldn't surprise me if Clark came back and said that was simply a poor choice of words.  But it still is a clear indicator of what it stands on the scale of things.

I'm certain that there are lots of core things he does like about it.  If not he wouldn't be looking at fixing the rest.  As a matter of fact, that seems clear evidence that he sees what to him is a very nice foundation to work on.  

But he is knocking it.  Big time.
If he isn't knocking it, then there is no such thing as a hater.


----------



## williamhm (Oct 4, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> As to *why* the answer is both simple and complex.
> 
> The simple answer as to why 4e doesn't feel like D&D to many individuals is because too many sacred cows were changed in D&D *for them*. I'm sure there will be many people who will respond here and say, "The sacred cows are all still there!" Well, they're not. That's okay, but you can't say that all of the same sacred cows of D&D are there.
> 
> ...




Actually I dont understand it new eddition=change, if they had sold me the same tired worn out sacred cows as a new eddition I would not have bought it.  I personally feel that 4e brought a breadth of fresh air to the game.  As long as the game is fun to play, and gets a group of people together Im happy, if this guy thinks its not dnd thats his opinion, I personally have never bought a 3rd party product, as none of the dms Ive ever gamed with have allowed 3rd party products so this changes nothing for me.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 4, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> The simple answer as to why 4e doesn't feel like D&D to many individuals is because too many sacred cows were changed in D&D *for them*. I'm sure there will be many people who will respond here and say, "The sacred cows are all still there!" Well, they're not. That's okay, but you can't say that all of the same sacred cows of D&D are there.
> 
> Some of the sacred cows I'm talking about are things like, but not limited to:
> 
> ...



Well, sure those are examples. But I can't say I miss even a single one of them. Those things are far from the core of 4E's problems.

Though I agree with the "Not everything ability being a combat option" entry.

Bryon is otherwise much closer to the mark...:


BryonD said:


> But to say "Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game", "Taking out the cheesy anime crap", "Putting back in the goodness", and "lost its soul", amongst other things




Meaning that the really sacred cows were things we took for granted and never even realized how precious they were to us:


Different classes being actually different.
Spellcasters having more variation at their fingertips than non-magical classes. Keeping magic, well, _magical_.
Miniatures optional. What you need to play is a pen. And a paper. Not a bunch of over-priced merchandise.
A system that generates characters that feels like "real" fantasy persons first, and combat machines a distant second.
Scrapping the "everybody's special" crap. If everybody's the hero, no one is.
Not being afraid of death and uselessness. You can't have real drama without risk.

This list I couldn't have created without fourth edition. Because how could we know that Wizards would create such an abomination and pass it off for a role-playing game in general and Dungeons & Dragons in particular?


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

I'm going to say that Clark's lost me as a customer. I am not terribly impressed with the concrete rule changes he's citing as part of the D&D "soul" - depowered classes and wizard-uber-alles? That's what I picked up Book of Nine Swords, and later 4th Edition, _to get away from!_ If you change the rules so that the wizard can do everything by picking the right spells, there is no game mechanical incentive to have a party that is not 100% wizard - and the designers of 4th Edition were very explicit that they wanted every class, every power to have a useful, on-the-table function.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Oct 4, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> As to *why* the answer is both simple and complex.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> So, it's perfectly understandable for there to be a complete disconnect between the various players of the game. Some will say too much has changed, others are okay with it. But what people are responding to when they say, "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" are those sacred cows that I was talking about.




Well said, Toben.

To some extent, I find it disingenuous of people to say that they don't understand what causes Clark and others to find that 4e doesn't feel like D&D. There are many differences between 4e and previous editions. Each player is different. Some will find that 4e has changed too much for their tastes, and some will not.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

The discussion "Is 4E D&D to me" is tiring me. Ultimiately, I totally don't care. I don't play Role-Playing Games because I want to play D&D. I play Role-Playing Games because I want to play Role-Playing Games. If that happens to be D&D, named D&D, or feels like D&D, that's fine with me. It is not any valid yardstick to me to measure a game, because all attempts to define what D&D "feels" like lead me to believe there are so many aspects that can make a game feel D&D that it's a totally subjective thing that's meaningless.



Halivar said:


> I don't usually buy 3PP content. I bought APG because Mouse gave me confidence that he was passionate about the product he made.
> 
> What I perceive Clark as saying here is that, if/when he makes 4E content, he'll be doing without any passion whatsoever.
> 
> I'll pass.




I wouldn't conclude that. He seems to enjoy D&D 4, but he doesn't yet get the D&D vibe from it. For me that makes he will 4E content with the passion he reserves for 4E, and OD&D/any-alternate-D&D-you-can-come-up-with with the passion he reserves for that. 

I like Shadowrun and D&D 4E. Shadowrun is not like D&D, or vice versa. Yet, if I created supplements for either system (which I don't - I am not in the publishing business  ), I would do it with passion, but they would uniquely fit to each system. It wouldn't tell you anything about its quality.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Oct 4, 2008)

*wizard balance*

There are other ways to balance the wizard than making him a fighter with different flavor text.

Check out the 1E wizards sometime.  They were balanced by inability to cast spells in melee, spell casting times in segments, way fewer spells per day, inability to extend their firepower by scribing scrolls willynilly, and a low cap on their HP (due to not benefitting from a really high CON).


I'll certainly buy a copy of whatever Clark comes up with .  Necromancer Game's track record has earned them that from me.

Ken


----------



## Greylock (Oct 4, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Context Alert!
> 
> Some folks seem to be thinking this means - "Necro doesn't like 4E"
> 
> ...




No. No, that's not quite right. Tell you what, here are the major quotes, in their entirety...

The first one pretty much nails his views, the rest embellish it:



> Lets just say I have an evil plan.
> 
> Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.
> 
> Clark






> But I look at how Monte's Unearthed Arcana did things and I like the concept of a niche version of the rules. Plus, I want a version of 4E that I want to play. So that is what Scott and I and maybe Bill are going to do while this GSL mess gets sorted out. We are re-writing 4E the way we want it, with the soul of 1E put back in. I am really, really excited about this. I played 4E and I like some stuff about it. It is a fun game. It just isnt D&D to me, the more I play it. Yes, I can defend it. Yes, I can say it is. But the truth is that my heart knows it isnt D&D anymore. I cant ignore that. I want D&D. To me the soul of D&D was AD&D. Somehow that got lost in making 4E.
> 
> I'm going to do 4E right.
> 
> Sure, some people might roll eyes and say not another version. To those I say, then dont buy it. I'm doing this for me. And I'm inviting you along. Come along if you want. If you dont, that is up to you.






> But I dont want to go back to white box simplicity. I love AD&D. I have tried to play it again, and it is fun. But I miss the modern advancements when I play. There is too much good stuff from 3E. And, frankly, there is some real good stuff in 4E. It just gets lost in a constricting grid where you feel like you are playing checkers not D&D, and in a mass of silly powers that all seem to let you move a square or move the target a square or do damage. I mean, how many million times do you need a differently named power to redundantly do pretty much the same thing. Where is the inspiration? Where is the fantasy? In the fancy power names? 'Cause it shure isnt in the checkers-like hopping of minis around that comes from the powers. I dont remember Conan or Elric or Aragorn teleporting across the board or shifting an enemy a square. I think the 4E designers fell in love with their own idea of new powers and forgot where this game comes from. There is a reason the old AD&D DMG has a long reading list of books that inspired D&D for players of the game to refer to and 4E doesnt have anything like that. Because, in my view, 4E has lost all connection with the things that inspired D&D to begin with. But I still like many of the modern advancements. I may love the look of an old classic Corvette, but I really dont want its mid-60s steering and suspension and engine. I want modern steering and suspension and engine. Its the same thing for me with D&D.
> 
> I want AD&D's classic soul to be transplanted into 4E's body with modern mechanics, and with a spiffy set of old school threads to dress it up in.
> 
> ...






> Look, this is not a product announcement. It isnt anything yet. It is me and Bill and Scott talking. And I threw the idea at Mona just briefly.
> 
> There is no GSL. I am bored. I wanted something to work on. So I decided to do this. It is just me screwing around.
> 
> ...






> Here's a couple just off the top of my head.
> 
> Starting with 3E, I dont think I could ever go back to "PC vs. Monster" side initiative. I love 3E's staggered initiative. I love 3E's unified rule system, though it went way too far. I like feats and the redone skills, so that you can actually use them. I think 4E did skills even better. And I love skill challenges. I love 4E's static defenses. I like the PCs rolling against Will or Fort or AC or Reflex. I like the idea of powers for all classes (though they went way overboard and way too anime). I L-O-V-E 4E monster design. It has all the consistency and intelligence of 3E but without the shackles, it has all the fun and flavor of 1E monsters but with a logical and usable system. That may be the think 4E did best (and Scott and i actually have a way to do it even better). I like 4E's idea that race matters more than at character creation (though I dont think they fully delivered on that, I will). I love 3E (and 4E's) more logical approach to structuring and pacing adventures -- meaning understanding how and what it takes to level and how to make sure that fits in an adventure. That stuff was never really present before in adventures. You wrote the adventure you wrote and the PCs advanced however they advanced. The new system is much more able to allow you to write very good adventures that achieve specific leveling results. I love domains and domain spells from 3E. I love the healing swap out solution for clerics--you can swap out a heal of the same level for a memorized spell. (by the way, i have a hybrid system designed that returns some of the vancian memorization concepts back to clerics and wizards but yet retains the benefits of the 4E approach). I like the smoothing out of the leveling curve which was too steep in 1E. I mean, who really ever had a PC get past 12th level. That was rare. I love the way 3E and now 4E handle conditions very consistently. I love the precision of the rules language. Much easier to ajudicate for the DM. I love the way 3E and 4E made PCs more customizable. For instance, there is little difference in 1E between your 6th level fighter and my 6th level fighter other than our gear. 2E with kits and stuff started to allow PC customization. I think 3E and 4E really advanced that idea. I love that as a player.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

CapnZapp said:


> Well, sure those are examples. But I can't say I miss even a single one of them. Those things are far from the core of 4E's problems.
> 
> Though I agree with the "Not everything ability being a combat option" entry.
> 
> ...



"Different classes actually being different" - have you actually played the game, or are you just griping because there's a unified power mechanic? Because in play, fighters, swordmages and paladins play very different and _they all fill the same role in the game_. Let alone other roles (try to play a rogue like a fighter and you should expect to get squashed, same with playing a warlock like a wizard). At this point, with the game having been out now for 4 months, there's no excuse for this lame meme to still be flying.

"Spellcasters have more variation than nonspellcasters" - Um, NO. Complexity should increase as you go up in level, not as you change classes. I don't want to have to scrap my level 10 fighter just because the wizard has spells that make her completely superfluous.

"Miniatures optional" - well, I can't argue with that. I've had arguments with my partner because I want to not be beholden to the battle grid all the time and she loves it.

"Real fantasy persons" - Do you realize how much of an oxymoron this is?

"No 'everyone's special,' some people are supporting characters." Yes. The supporting characters are NPCs. PCs should be an ensemble cast - everyone gets to be important, just not all at the same time. If any of the PCs are supporting cast, they shouldn't be. In the games that I run, I try to make sure every PC gets the spotlight at least once a session, and gets the spotlight for the majority of a session at least once in the campaign.

"Not afraid of death and uselessness." Again, you're not real familiar with the 4th Edition rules, are you? Or at least if you are, you don't have a DM who's willing to challenge the party. You can seriously risk death in 4th Edition, I've come close to a TPK on more than one occasion.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 4, 2008)

Just one thing:


CapnZapp said:


> Scrapping the "everybody's special" crap. If everybody's the hero, no one is.



This doesn't make any sense to me at all. If anything, this is an argument against 3E, where everyone and their uncle has class levels. In my 4E game, there are 5 people in the whole world with class levels.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The discussion "Is 4E D&D to me" is tiring me. Ultimiately, I totally don't care. I don't play Role-Playing Games because I want to play D&D. I play Role-Playing Games because I want to play Role-Playing Games. If that happens to be D&D, named D&D, or feels like D&D, that's fine with me. It is not any valid yardstick to me to measure a game, because all attempts to define what D&D "feels" like lead me to believe there are so many aspects that can make a game feel D&D that it's a totally subjective thing that's meaningless.



If it's tiring then maybe you shouldn't engage in it... 

More seriously, I also play RPG to have fun. I enjoy several different games. AD&D is one of them, so when I see a game with D&D on the cover, I'm interested on how related it is with a game I like.

4e, for me, is remotely related, if at all. This is not a slam on 4e, which I can evaluate on its own merits. I don't consider it the best game ever made, but I enjoy it enough to run two weekly games of it currently.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 4, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Edit: To put it another way:  if *I* had said the exact same things, no one would say the glass was half full.  They'd just call me a "hater".




Of course they would.. You have, at no point (iirc), said much positive about 4e. Clark has, so when he says something like he has, it sounds more like an honest opinion than blind irrational hatred. 

Anyway, I must admit that I agree with Clark on a lot of the points. Sure, I like 4e about a 100 times more than 3.x, but that doesn't mean I think it is perfect. In fact, the game that Clark outlines would really turn me on . It is feasible? most likely. Is Necromancers' 3-man (?) operation capable of doing so? I hope so, but I do not expect it.

Cheers


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The discussion "Is 4E D&D to me" is tiring me. Ultimiately, I totally don't care. I don't play Role-Playing Games because I want to play D&D. I play Role-Playing Games because I want to play Role-Playing Games. If that happens to be D&D, named D&D, or feels like D&D, that's fine with me. It is not any valid yardstick to me to measure a game, because all attempts to define what D&D "feels" like lead me to believe there are so many aspects that can make a game feel D&D that it's a totally subjective thing that's meaningless.




You are missing the point. The aknowledgment within Clarc's sayings is that 4e does not feel as a roleplaying game ( D&D as a term is used to represent a gronard currency value of story-driven roleplaying instead of game-driven roleplaying):
"you feel like you are playing checkers not D&D, and in a mass of silly powers that all seem to let you move a square or move the target a square or do damage. I mean, how many million times do you need a differently named power to redundantly do pretty much the same thing. Where is the inspiration?"
And I do not think he is any wrong here.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> "Different classes actually being different" - have you actually played the game, or are you just griping because there's a unified power mechanic? Because in play, fighters, swordmages and paladins play very different and _they all fill the same role in the game_. Let alone other roles (try to play a rogue like a fighter and you should expect to get squashed, same with playing a warlock like a wizard). At this point, with the game having been out now for 4 months, there's no excuse for this lame meme to still be flying.....




This. There are certain elements of 4E that aren't clear until you actually play the game. Classes are NOT interchangeable --- anyone who has played in a lopsided party and a balanced party can tell you this. 

It's just like AD&D --- if you don't bring a fighter, a thief, m-u and cleric ... you're screwed. This is true of any (and every) Gygaxian dungeon. Sure, once you have the major food groups, feel free to add on the thief-acrobats and cavaliers, but if you take them and exclude the core classes, you are toast. 

True in AD&D. True in 4E.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I mean, how many million times do you need a differently named power to redundantly do pretty much the same thing. Where is the inspiration?"
> 
> And I do not think he is any wrong here.




I respect your opinion, but in my experience the powers are much more nuanced than that.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Wow, I find particular things about Clark's statements to be rather disingenuous.

For example, he says...



> I want Fourth Edition done right.




Then, in the same post, he turns around and says...



> This is not a criticism of 4E.




Now, if thinks he can do 4e "done right," that means that currently 4e is "done wrong," which is definitely a criticism of 4e. By making that claim, then denying that it's a criticism... well, that strikes me as talking out the other side of his mouth, which is unfortunate.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> I respect your opinion, but in my experience the powers are much more nuanced than that.




I was quoting Clark. Actually IMO powers are much more nuanced that that too 
-nuanced in a negative way regarding the desired smoothness of the roleplaying experience on the table.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 4, 2008)

Here's what I know. 

I messed with stuff like Conana, Grim Tales, True 20, and other OGL variants. 

The only ones I wound up using long term were Arcana Evolved because it's fairly compatible with D&D 3.5 right out of the box. 

My days of buying variants of a game I'm already playing are over. 

If this version if 100% compatible with 4e, great. If not, I've fallen out of the customer base.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

> I was really hoping to support Necromancer, but not if this is what they're putting out.




This opinion does confuse me a little.

If you like Necro, and you like the work they do, is the edition/liscence/etc. really that important?

It's like I said over in the Piratecat thread -- a good DM can run anything and have it be a great game. A good company can make a good ruleset, even if it's not 4e. I wouldn't let Edition Warz keep me from playing a good game from a company I trust.

Of course, the same can be true of giving 4e a try if you haven't been a fan, but you like Necro and Necro makes something 4e.

I, personally, can't stand by while awesomeness passes me just because it's not for my favorite game of pretend. It seems odd to me that people would value some edition so highly that they wouldn't give something they think they'd like a try.



> if thinks he can do 4e "done right," that means that currently 4e is "done wrong,"




It seems to me more that 4e doesn't hit _him personally_ as "real D&D," but that he doesn't begrudge any of the design decisions made. It's not that 4e was done wrong, it just wasn't done to his personal tastes, which he makes pretty clear are his personal tastes. WotC has different criteria for what makes a good game, so they didn't do something wrong, it just passes him by. 

It is possible to say "I don't like 4e that much, I would've done something different" without then implying that 4e should be doing something different.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> This. There are certain elements of 4E that aren't clear until you actually play the game. Classes are NOT interchangeable --- anyone who has played in a lopsided party and a balanced party can tell you this.
> 
> It's just like AD&D --- if you don't bring a fighter, a thief, m-u and cleric ... you're screwed. This is true of any (and every) Gygaxian dungeon. Sure, once you have the major food groups, feel free to add on the thief-acrobats and cavaliers, but if you take them and exclude the core classes, you are toast.
> 
> True in AD&D. True in 4E.



Incidentally, this is where I think 3E fell down _a lot_ - and it comes back to making certain classes superfluous via wizard substitution. You had to power up fighty classes to give them par with wizard and especially with CoDzilla. This encouraged people to create even more powerful magic-user and divine classes to maintain the perceived gap and caused a lot of power bloat.

I liked 3E a lot. Just like I liked my Playstation a lot. But I've got no reason to go back to either.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> I don't want to have to scrap my level 10 fighter just because the wizard has spells that make her completely superfluous.




you mean this lame meme is still flying? 
It's actually better balanced this way IMHO. Early levels wizards are very weak while warriors still go on strong. Later levels Wizards get more powerful as they access stronger spells and begin balancing using Vancian casting limits while warrior types can keep up their damage all the time. 

While the wizards high level thermonuclear fireball can clean out a room, the wizard is still not sturdy enough to withstand large amounts of damage. The warrior on the other hand, can. 
The Wizard also will not be able to cast his Nuke every single round (again the beauty of Vancian magic).


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I was quoting Clark. Actually IMO powers are much more nuanced that that too
> -nuanced in a negative way regarding the desired smoothness of the roleplaying experience on the table.




I agree with you there. It would be nice if the subtleties of the powers were a little less subtle. 

But there's also the case to be made that tactical combat is a lot like chess. At low levels of mastery, anyone can beat on an orc. At high levels of mastery (here, meaning, high degree of skill in team tactics) you can pull off some serious whooping. I like this aspect. 

Sorry. Off Topic. Just wanted to agree with the Xec.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> you mean this lame meme is still flying?
> It's actually better balanced this way IMHO. Early levels wizards are very weak while warriors still go on strong. Later levels Wizards get more powerful as they access stronger spells and begin balancing using Vancian casting limits while warrior types can keep up their damage all the time.
> 
> While the wizards high level thermonuclear fireball can clean out a room, the wizard is still not sturdy enough to withstand large amounts of damage. The warrior on the other hand, can.
> The Wizard also will not be able to cast his Nuke every single round (again the beauty of Vancian magic).




Less the warrior and more the rogue. A wizard (or sorcerer) with decent levels makes every catburglar worthless. Knock, invisibility, teleport ... yeesh.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 4, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Umm, it would certainly be greatly wrong to say that Clark has declared 4E a failure.
> But to say "Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game", "Taking out the cheesy anime crap", "Putting back in the goodness", and "lost its soul", amongst other things is not "knocking" it seems a pretty clear loss of context in my book.
> 
> He called it a miniature game that needs to be turned BACK into a roleplaying game.
> ...




QFT. Usually, a statement like that here on EN World leads to a quick flame war and an even quicker thread-closing. There are a lot of fanboys on here that do NOT like their favorite edition (whichever edition it may be) being dissed.

When Clark's the one saying it, however, then it's a lot harder to just write off. He's a giant in this industry, and he's also one of 4E's biggest supporters, so his opinion seems to garner a bit more respect (at least enough to keep this thread open...so far).


----------



## Quantarum (Oct 4, 2008)

CapnZapp said:


> Not being afraid of death and uselessness. You can't have real drama without risk.





   Depends on what you mean, finding out you're "useless" can cause a lot of drama, but not the kind anyone really wants at their table.
 "Real fantasy persons" reminds me of GURPs "realistic fantasy" setting. I'd grimace every time I saw that, Creating realistic, deep personalities is entirely the venue of the players. I've never seen any rule set or artifice that could turn a hand full of lines on a sheet of paper into a living, breathing soul. That alchemy is purely the effort of imagination. 

-Q.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It seems to me more that 4e doesn't hit _him personally_ as "real D&D," but that he doesn't begrudge any of the design decisions made. It's not that 4e was done wrong, it just wasn't done to his personal tastes, which he makes pretty clear are his personal tastes. WotC has different criteria for what makes a good game, so they didn't do something wrong, it just passes him by.




Are you actually trying to argue that he claims to be able to do it right (which implies it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? That it doesn't have the "soul of D&D" (which is an explicit claim that it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? When he talks about getting rid of 4e stuff (like it's "anime crap"), that isn't a criticism?

Because if you are, that's just ridiculous.

Telling people to "image it done right" or claiming that he can "do it right" or that he can restore it's "soul" is definitely criticizing the current product, and all of the semantic song and dance doesn't change that.



> It is possible to say "I don't like 4e that much, I would've done something different" without then implying that 4e should be doing something different.




Indeed. However, the problem is that he didn't say that. He said "I can make a 4e done right." By saying "done right," he is saying that it should have been done differently, because if it's not done right, the only other option is that it was done wrong.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Less the warrior and more the rogue. A wizard (or sorcerer) with decent levels makes every catburglar worthless. Knock, invisibility, teleport ... yeesh.




I agree with you to a point. Of a Wizard devotes spell slots to sneaky rogue stuff, thats less damage/utility spells later for his main function (more vancian balance). The rogue still has unlimited Trapfinding, stealth, etc. Vancian wizards will reach a limit.
Kind of stupid to devote all that into a wizard if a rogue is in the group. The spells you mentioned do have some other creative uses though.

Again theres the survivability factor of the Wizard vs. Rogue argument. Rogues still have evasion and dodge and can take a little more punishment than the Wizard. Then theres Sneak Attack etc.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> I agree with you there. It would be nice if the subtleties of the powers were a little less subtle.
> 
> But there's also the case to be made that tactical combat is a lot like chess. At low levels of mastery, anyone can beat on an orc. At high levels of mastery (here, meaning, high degree of skill in team tactics) you can pull off some serious whooping. I like this aspect.
> 
> Sorry. Off Topic. Just wanted to agree with the Xec.




Actually I am not sure we are on the same boat. My problem with powers is that I feel they are silly -either on an individual level for each power (regarding martial ones especially) and/or on their implementation as a system. Of course the biggest problem for me here is the individual level. The other -used as a system- I could possibly cope with.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> Kind of stupid to devote all that into a wizard if a rogue is in the group. The spells you mentioned do have some other creative uses though.




This ignores itemization completely. Rogues will often be picking up magic weapons and magic armor, things that a wizard's itemization does not require at all. That means the wizard can load up with scrolls and wands which allow him to easily replicate the rogue's schtick without having to spend a single spell slot on it.



> Then theres Sneak Attack etc.




Which a good chunk of monsters are completely immune to.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 4, 2008)

I think spells like Knock and Invisibilty WERE balanced in pre 3E due to the fact that 

a)there wasn't an automatic assumption that the wizard would have the spell (remember pre 3E, the only non-jump the hoops method of spell acquisition was DM-leniency)

b) no itemization. Anyone remember what it took to create a Wand of fire (the 3E version became the Staff of Fire) as outlined in the DMG? Hell, you had to be 9th level IIRC to even brew potins/scribe scrolls.

Once those two core assumptions were lifted, invisibility and knock became way stronger.

There's a big difference between a 10th level wizard with a 16 INT in 1e/2E coming across a knock spell in a spellbook versus the same 10th level wizard with 16 INT in 3E.

Not only does the 1e/2e wizard have to decide it is even worth it to scribe the spell into his book (wizards were limited to a total # of spells per level related to their int) but a 10th level wizard only had 4 2nd level slots (couldn't use higher level slots to bypass this) and thus, on an actual adventure, there was a VERY high opportunity cost in memorizing it.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 4, 2008)

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.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Actually I am not sure we are on the same boat. My problem with powers is that I feel they are silly -either on an individual level for each power (regarding martial ones especially) and/or on their implementation as a system. Of course the biggest problem for me here is the individual level. The other -used as a system- I could possibly cope with.




Ah...I see.  Let me also add, that despite my enjoyment of 4E, the powers fluff stinks. 

Anyhow, for Necro's 3.9 edition, I'd buy it, just to steal ideas for variants. Maybe there's room for both vancian and non-vancian casters in the world.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

> Are you actually trying to argue that he claims to be able to do it right (which implies it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? That it doesn't have the "soul of D&D" (which is an explicit claim that it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? When he talks about getting rid of 4e stuff (like it's "anime crap"), that isn't a criticism?




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.

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

I think he's more saying that 4e has too much "anime crap" for his personal tastes, perhaps. Not that he wouldn't support it given half a chance.

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. Personal feelings, after all, usually aren't criticism. 4e doesn't need to be defended against his personal views any more than Fruit Loops needs to be defended against someone's personal fear of cartoon parrots. 

It certainly doesn't seem that he's somehow two-faced about it, to me. It's not very hypocritical to say "I think there are some problems with how 4e feels to me personally, not that those feelings are universal or should be assumed to be directly caused by 4e alone." This is my understanding of his post. 

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


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

Sure would have been a different world if the GSL has come out on time for the 3PPs.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> This ignores itemization completely. Rogues will often be picking up magic weapons and magic armor, things that a wizard's itemization does not require at all. That means the wizard can load up with scrolls and wands which allow him to easily replicate the rogue's schtick without having to spend a single spell slot on it.




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.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> This is so bizarre.




The bizarre thing to me is that this seems aimed at anti-4e people (some of whom view this as a good thing), but it would require those people to actually purchase 4e in order to use the supplement.

"It's a book about playing like previous editions, and it only requires you to buy the game you don't want to play in order to use it."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Are you actually trying to argue that he claims to be able to do it right (which implies it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? That it doesn't have the "soul of D&D" (which is an explicit claim that it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? When he talks about getting rid of 4e stuff (like it's "anime crap"), that isn't a criticism?
> 
> Because if you are, that's just ridiculous.
> 
> ...



I fear that you're a little overanalyizing his statement here.
It appears to me that "I don't want to critisize 4E" he wants to say more like: "I don't want to start a flamewar, say 4E sucks, or the designers are all mad and destroying D&D, or whatever else ridicilous stupid things have beens said in the edition wars. I am just saying there are things 4E can be done better - in my (and my colleagues and friends) view."

Of course he criticizes D&D 4 - if he wants to do something different from 4E, there are obvious things he doesn't like. 



			
				xechnao said:
			
		

> You are missing the point. The aknowledgment within Clarc's sayings is that 4e does not feel as a roleplaying game ( D&D as a term is used to represent a gronard currency value of story-driven roleplaying instead of game-driven roleplaying):
> "you feel like you are playing checkers not D&D, and in a mass of silly powers that all seem to let you move a square or move the target a square or do damage. I mean, how many million times do you need a differently named power to redundantly do pretty much the same thing. Where is the inspiration?"
> And I do not think he is any wrong here.



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).



			
				Nikosandros said:
			
		

> if it's tiring then maybe you shouldn't engage in it...



I wish I was that smart... I really wish. *sigh*

Maybe I should follow hongs example and get Mass Effect and play instead of post.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> It was a class comparison.




You can't compare them without also drawing on the expected itemization they would have, according to the core rules wealth-by-level guidelines. Because if you do, then the non-caster is even more screwed, since it's assumed he will have magic weapons and armor in order to combat higher level threats... threats which will mop the floor with them if that itemization is non-existent.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Let me also add, that despite my enjoyment of 4E, the powers fluff stinks.



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.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> The bizarre thing to me is that this seems aimed at anti-4e people (some of whom view this as a good thing), but it would require those people to actually purchase 4e in order to use the supplement.
> 
> "It's a book about playing like previous editions, and it only requires you to buy the game you don't want to play in order to use it."




Yeah, that's what I meant. It seems like nothing more than a marketing move to me. I feel like I woke up in crazy town.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

Halivar said:


> 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.




Amen. (Especially w/ Martial Powers.) I almost with they left a space in the rule books to write in our own power descriptions. The mechanics are the same, but the fluff is unique (and meaningful) to the specific character/campaign.


----------



## Kishin (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Are you actually trying to argue that he claims to be able to do it right (which implies it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? That it doesn't have the "soul of D&D" (which is an explicit claim that it wasn't done right) isn't a criticism? When he talks about getting rid of 4e stuff (like it's "anime crap"), that isn't a criticism?
> 
> Because if you are, that's just ridiculous.
> 
> Telling people to "image it done right" or claiming that he can "do it right" or that he can restore it's "soul" is definitely criticizing the current product, and all of the semantic song and dance doesn't change that.




QFT. Sorry folks, but there's no way to say Clark isn't criticizing the current product here, which to me is just baffling considering how rah-rah cheerleader he'd been about it all the way up until recent months.  Its pretty typical of human beings in general, though.

We really don't need to come out and try and sugarcoat what he's saying, though. Clark's a big boy, a respected member of the community and a longtime ENWorld poster. He knows how these things go, and I'm sure he's well prepared to take a few shots for his opinion. 

Clark, when you switch horses in the middle of the stream so suddenly, and start slinging language like 'anime crap'  praising Vancian mechanics, it kinda starts to make you look a little...comical, particularly  in the latter case. I'm not saying you're not allowed to change your opinion, but when your response contains buzzword-style criticism, it doesn't feel like its coming from someone of your stature in the community.



			
				JVisigatis said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's what I meant. It seems like nothing more than a marketing move to me. I feel like I woke up in crazy town.




I think Crazy Town was actually the original name of the Internet  before the Mayor of the Tubes voted to have it changed to something more tourist friendly.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> You can't compare them without also drawing on the expected itemization they would have,




Sure I can not everyone follows "expected" rules.  Probably because as Ive stated, my group and I wouldnt care about Items that duplicate another class function/ability. 
Wealth by level works fine for *all* classes, no one said we had to take items that duplicate another class function.

late edit*** btw to the others, sorry for the slight derail.


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 4, 2008)

Clark is entitled to both his opinions and his taste in games, but was he trying to intentionally anger 4e fans with his references to the "soul of D&D," "anime crap," etc., etc.?  Which is weird, since he is usually so diplomatic.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 4, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> Clark is entitled to both his opinions and his taste in games, but was he trying to intentionally anger 4e fans with his references to the "soul of D&D," "anime crap," etc., etc.?  Which is weird, since he is usually so diplomatic.




mood swings? no morning coffee?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Halivar said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 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.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I wish I was that smart... I really wish. *sigh*
> 
> Maybe I should follow hongs example and get Mass Effect and play instead of post.



It was just a joke... even if we disagree I feel that you're making valuable contributions to this thread (and in general).


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Oct 4, 2008)

IMO Clark is finally being honest. It isn't that he was lying before, its that he wanted so bad to like 4e, wanted so bad to be part of the new edition of D&D that he lost all objectivity early on. IMO he was a bit of a fanboi with the "rah rah 4e" stuff. His loyalty to the D&D brand is what caused him to be such a cheerleader and this IMO is the problem. D&D is simply the name of a set of mechanics owned by WoTC and IMO deserves loyalty only so long as it does what you need it to. The moment the mechanics currently called D&D fail to provide you with the gaming experience you desire is the moment it is time to support something else.

It isn't like there is a shortage of good OGL mechanics available.

Clark wants D&D to feel a certain way but it can't be done, not with 4e as it is. 4e feels the way it does because of the design goals of 4e, its that simple. 4e's design goals were very different than those of 3e and this is why so many people say 4e doesn't feel like D&D. I'm not going to argue with "_4e feels like D&D_" sentiment. Feel is subjective but I know plenty of folks who feel that 4e is D&D in name only.

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


----------



## BryonD (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 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.




Wild guess alert......

In my reading and speculation it is neither of the above, though probably much closer to the former than the latter.  I think "3.75" is out of the question and hasn't been hinted at.  Further, if he was thinking 3.75 and talking to Erik about it, then Pathfinder would be the clear starting point.  Not happening.

That said, based on the breadth and degree of issue he identified, I could certainly see a very significantly different take on the game.  So it could "replace" rather than supplement the current core.

That said, he clearly said it depends on a better GSL.  (Which to me ends the conversation beyond anything more than fun debate of alternate reality) If a better GSL were to come along, I still can not believe it would allow that level of rebuild.  So the core would be required.  Whether or not it was readily compatible with adventures and splatbooks is another question altogether.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 4, 2008)

nevermind


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> 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.



I just read what he writes, and don't try to make more out of it then I see written in those lines.

The passage you quoted gives me the feel Clark might not like the fact that most of the powers are limited to damage + status effect/movement effect (especially the latter), and would like something else. I don't know what that something else would be. Maybe he wants not every major class ability after the 1st level abilities to be limited to powers. Maybe he wants to get away from the tactical/board game focus of the powers and have them stand more "on their own".

I don't see him claiming 4E is no longer an RPG or nonsense like that. I can't really say 3E tactical combat gave me a strong role-playing feel, either. I think combat is just combat. It's fun, it's exciting, and in most good games, the character you play, the role you pretend to be in, matters in combat. But role-playing is still a little more in that. Maybe Clark wants the powers to matter more outside of combats. Maybe he wants to make the powers a less prevalent component out of class design. Maybe he wants to have powers that deal more non-combat stuff, too.

 I have no idea where he will end up with this. Maybe it'll interest me, maybe it won't.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Sure would have been a different world if the GSL has come out on time for the 3PPs.




I agree with this.  If the GSL was not a sucide pact for 3PPs, Clark would be making 4th Edition stuff right now.

Since he can't, he doesn't have anything better to do then say bad things about 4th Edition.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I just read what he writes, and don't try to make more out of it then I see written in those lines.
> 
> The passage you quoted gives me the feel Clark might not like the fact that most of the powers are limited to damage + status effect/movement effect (especially the latter), and would like something else. I don't know what that something else would be. Maybe he wants not every major class ability after the 1st level abilities to be limited to powers. Maybe he wants to get away from the tactical/board game focus of the powers and have them stand more "on their own".
> 
> ...




You weren't paying enough attention then. I figured there was no need to quote every single phrase of Clark on that thread
"Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. *Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game*. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact. 

    Clark"

Bold emphasis mine

And I do not find it nonsense. I understand it pretty well.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> His notion is to come up with a '4E that is still D&D'. Myself, I question whether this is necessary.



Perhaps he likes the mechanical framework but not the final implementation and/or the associated flavor. This seems to be the most reasonable answer. 



> Clark's favorite flavor of D&D is evidently 1E. I call that a respectable choice.



Sure. 



> So the question is... especially with OSRIC, the OGL and the resurgence of interest in old school gaming... why doesn't Necromancer just do 1E products and get it over with?



Because they want to sell more books? (I think the resurgence of interest in old school gaming is greatly exaggerated, at least in terms of the market). 



> I'd be interested in their stuff if it wasn't written for new school systems.



I think a lot of people share that opinion, but not enough to make it a viable business decision for Necromancer Games, hence their consideration of making 4e products.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2008)

BryonD said:


> He called it a miniature game that needs to be turned BACK into a roleplaying game.



He's wrong. But entitled to his opinion.



> Read that again.



He's still wrong. And still entitled to his opinion.



> It is a miniature game.



It was a role-playing game last night when my friends and I played it. Our characters rescued a goblin union organizer from an ambush by fae assassins. Later, my guy offered to compose 'highly eroticized propaganda' to aid the labor movement... it's a long story. 



> As it stands, action needs to be taken to make it return to being a roleplaying game.



And that action is 'play with creative people'. At least, that works for us.



> In other words, in its current form it falls short of being a roleplaying game.



It's possible to not like something while still recognizing what it is. Liver and onions, for instance, while revolting, is still _food_, and anyone asserting otherwise is being silly.

That said, I wish Necromancer Games luck with their 4e products, if they decide to go that route. I'd love to see some diverse, high-quality takes on 4e. I just don't think it needs to turned back into something is obviously already is.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Mallus said:


> He's wrong. But entitled to his opinion.
> 
> 
> He's still wrong. And still entitled to his opinion.
> ...




You are wrong to "bewrong" him. It is a matter of your opinion as is his. Your opinion cannot make wrong his opinion.


----------



## Yair (Oct 4, 2008)

Greylock said:


> No. No, that's not quite right. Tell you what, here are the major quotes, in their entirety...
> 
> The first one pretty much nails his views, the rest embellish it:




Excellent quotes, thanks for the summary.

I rather agree with Clark that 4e feels like a miniatures game, so far. I've still only played low-levels (1-3), though. I'm gonna give 4e a lot of more time to pan out, but so far it does feel like it's lost the free-form, versimilitude-feel. This despite having rules supporting improvisation and so on, which I am greatly thankful for. 

I am not sure I agree with some of his notions, however. Like Vancian magic, or not being afraid of buffing. 

Finally, I'm getting old grumpy and unwilling to learn new rule systems. I'm inclining more and more towards finding a more free-form system where I can focus on kicking ass, not on rules minutae. I have a feeling my current campaing will be the last campaign of D&D I'llr run, whether Clark manages to "fix" 4e or not.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> 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.




Given that Necro has no full time employees and doesn't publish anything on a monthly basis, I agree with your assessment.


----------



## Delta (Oct 4, 2008)

Kishin said:


> QFT. Sorry folks, but there's no way to say Clark isn't criticizing the current product here, which to me is just baffling considering how rah-rah cheerleader he'd been about it all the way up until recent months.




Look, from what I've read of Clark it's very simple. He has two competing desires that 4E has made incompatible.

(a) He loves, loves, loves to be involved in supporting the current-edition, currently-published Dungeons & Dragons brand.
(b) He can't stand the GSL or the actual 4E rules as written, now that he's seen them.

So now he's torn and trying to work it through. He wanted 4E to be successful prior to its release and publicly hoped for it really hard. (Personally I thought that was a fool's errand, but what the hey, a guy can hope.) Now he's trying to pick up the pieces like a lot of us are. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 4, 2008)

Amazing. I have seen this: "How dare you criticize 4E?!?" before. Except 3E was in that sentence.

News flash, 4E is NOT perfect. If it was I would love it. If it was ENWorld polls would not be indicating 30 to 40% of ENWorld board members are NOT playing 4E.

So Clark is honest enough to say, "4E is not perfect." Then, being the problem solver he is says, "I have some ideas that I think will fix 4E for me and be of interest to others who are also unhappy with 4e."

So rather than admit 4E is not perfect and could use some different ideas to increase its appeal, posters would rather talk like 4E is perfection.

We heard that story before. Now we have 4E. We hear the same story now, and there will be a 5E.

Some posters may actually feel 4E is perfect. However it is not perfect for a very significant number of ENWorld members. If Clarks ideas are published and turn more of the 30 to 40% of ENWorld members on to 4E thats a good thing for WOTC and 4E.

I agree with the heart of Clarks sentiments. I do not agree about it ruining role play. Even in the threads where I have commented on my feeling about how 4E plays I have always said that 4E has not ruined my ability, or the ability of those I am playing 4E with, to role play to our hearts content.

There is a fair bit of other things I do not like about 4E, though. So I look forward to seeing if Clark is enough of a genious to come up with changes to 4E that makes it the best game on the market for more ENWorlders. This should have people excited, not acting like their being insulted, or acting like 4E is perfection. He isn't insulting anyone, and he is being honest about 4E not being perfect.

Clark is in a position to put his 4E house rules into print, I look forward to checking them out, so I hope it happens.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> You are wrong to "bewrong" him.



Perhaps.



> It is a matter of your opinion as is his.



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


----------



## Kishin (Oct 4, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it, too.




Yeah, but you should probably expect a few strange and even dirty looks when you go around trying to sell that cake to other people, then turn around and declare the cake to be crap.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2008)

Treebore said:


> News flash, 4E is NOT perfect.



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



> Clark is in a position to put his 4E house rules into print, I look forward to checking them out, so I hope it happens.



So do I.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 4, 2008)

I don't think it's entirely fair to accuse Clark of "switching horses in midstream"... whatever that is supposed to mean here.  His rah-rah stuff was pre-launch, when he was seeing teasers, etc., or early into the launch before he had much of a chance to play.

It seems to me like he was enthusastic about it, thought it looked really good initially, and then after putting it through the paces ended up not liking the play experience that it delivers.

My own opinion is that D&D has always primarily been about exploration. To care about what you're exploring, you have to believe in it a little bit. The boardgame mechanics ("shift a square", "hit him and he shifts", etc.) remove the feeling that you're in a world... the "economy of actions" thing doesn't help either, in that you're evidently not supposed to hire henchmen, animate the dead, etc. because it's not 'fair' according to some game standard. So if you're not exploring a world, I can see how it could feel like you're just playing Advanced Descent.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Amazing. I have seen this: "How dare you criticize 4E?!?" before. Except 3E was in that sentence.




Can you point me to the posts in this thread that take that stance, because I can't find a single one. I can find plenty that take exception to some of the things that Clark said (such as my problem with his criticizing the game, then turning around and claiming it's not criticism when it clearly is), but not a single one that takes exception to the fact that he has any criticisms at all.



> So Clark is honest enough to say, "4E is not perfect." Then, being the problem solver he is says, "I have some ideas that I think will fix 4E for me and be of interest to others who are also unhappy with 4e."




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."


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 4, 2008)

"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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

> Mein Kampf




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


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Halivar said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Halivar said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> "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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


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





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


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> You are wrong to "bewrong" him. It is a matter of your opinion as is his. Your opinion cannot make wrong his opinion.



Opinions can very well be wrong.

If one is of the opinion that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that is one's opinion. But that opinion is _wrong_, and demonstrably so.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Halivar said:


> "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.




On the contrary this is the actual matter. If not just labeling something a roleplaying and just creating any rule regarding the possibility of picking a choice among any variety, and doing so in turns with other people would be sufficently enough to make redundant anything else. Instead there are more roleplaying games around because what it matters to people is the different experience they provide.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> Opinions can very well be wrong.
> 
> If one is of the opinion that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that is one's opinion. But that opinion is _wrong_, and demonstrably so.




Opinions can possibly be wrong when contrasted with new information objectively regarded valid. Opinions can not be wrong when contrasted with other opinions.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Opinions can possibly be wrong when contrasted with new information objectively regarded valid. Opinions can not be wrong when contrasted with other opinions.



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.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 4, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> 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.




He is writing from his personal point of view, just like you and Little Raven. Just like pretty much everyone does. So read it as his view, his feelings, his opinion, because that is what it is.

At least he isn't thinking or saying 4E sucks and is going to another system. He wants to solve the problems he sees with 4E. To write up an extensive house rules document and maybe publish it to share with others who may find them of interest.

That is what he means behind his chosen words, whether others like how he said it or not. He still wants 4E to be his "go to" game for D&D.

So rather than look for word usage to take offense with try and just see it as how he sees 4E and what he feels he needs to address in order to make it the perfect game for him.

Thats all his posts are about, taking a game he likes and turning it into his perfect game system. The same reason I love C&C, the same reason others play something other than 4E, to play the game closest to what each of us consider perfect for our gaming preferences.

Despite his word choice, that is all Clark means. So take offense if you wish, but your the one who will be taking things too far, not Clark.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


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



Of course the AMHDotEL 4E would help D&D 4E. I suppose it also has good things to say about Shadowrun 4E, right? 

But let's face it - the 4th edition of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lacks the soul of the OAHDotEL. It's AHDotEL in name only. You just have to look at the anime cover to see that. Anyone using the OAHDoTEL 4E is not really interested in speaking or writing English, he's just looking at a list of words without any flavor or meaning.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 4, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> 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...






Darrin Drader said:


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




I have been playing monopoly since I was a kid, with many many different people, and I have yet to play it with anyone who takes the role of an imaginary character.

"Hello all. I will be playing a character named Bob Simpson tonight. He is a 45 y/o real estate tycoon wanna-be who likes African-American ladies and Long Island ice-teas. His hairline is receding and he is a bit on the heavy side, but most people find him quite funny. He usually wears a grey suit and a brown suit-case at work, and drive a yellow porsche. If he goes to jail, he will probably break down and sit out at least 5 extra rounds, as he had a nasty experience when he was a kid, which left him traumatized and unable to cope with being locked up"

Do you guys introduce your characters like that in Monopoly? Seriously? For us, it's more like: "I pick the red car, lets roll and see who starts".


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course the AMHDotEL 4E would help D&D 4E. I suppose it also has good things to say about Shadowrun 4E, right?
> 
> But let's face it - the 4th edition of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lacks the soul of the OAHDotEL. It's AHDotEL in name only. You just have to look at the anime cover to see that. Anyone using the OAHDoTEL 4E is not really interested in speaking or writing English, he's just looking at a list of words without any flavor or meaning.



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


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

Treebore said:


> So rather than look for word usage to take offense with try and just see it as how he sees 4E and what he feels he needs to address in order to make it the perfect game for him.
> 
> Thats all his posts are about, taking a game he likes and turning it into his perfect game system. The same reason I love C&C, the same reason others play something other than 4E, to play the game closest to what each of us consider perfect for our gaming preferences.



I think it's unusual for me to agree with Treebore, but I do in this case. People are blowing it out of proportion. It's bad enough that we feel the need to defend our game choices or our games of choice, don't add "front-lines" where they don't need to exist!

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


----------



## Treebore (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> Opinions can very well be wrong.
> 
> If one is of the opinion that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that is one's opinion. But that opinion is _wrong_, and demonstrably so.




Yes, but Clarks opinion has evidence to prove the world is round and that the earth revolves around the sun. Plus he has hundreds of ENWorld board members who have chosen not to play 4E that also proves he is on to something.

So I think it is very big of you to accept your opinion of the world being flat is demonstrably wrong.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Treebore said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

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


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> [...] 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

jensun said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

jensun said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2008)

jensun said:


> 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.


----------



## D'karr (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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.




You do crack me up...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

> you cannot say that 4E is not an RPG




You could say that 4e doesn't feel like an RPG, too you. By your (personal, subjective) opinion of what an RPG "is" or "should be." 

In my reading, that was his intended meaning, regardless of the casual omission of the "IMHO" signifier.

Language is not pure.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You could say that 4e doesn't feel like an RPG, too you. By your (personal, subjective) opinion of what an RPG "is" or "should be."
> 
> In my reading, that was his intended meaning, regardless of the casual omission of the "IMHO" signifier.
> 
> Language is not pure.



Language is not pure, no, but the general trend of linguistics over the long term is to allow more concepts to be expressed, and to broaden the number of concepts enveloped within a single term. And drawing a linguistic border to exclude an object from a class in which it should obviously be included is not a good use of language.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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.




Ok, so you want to go on saying that because we have dictionaries with these definitions you think Clark fails or better makes false statements. Well, no worthwhile comment I can make.

And this has gone way too far?  
Clark or anyone else around here is not forcing you to buy his book or stop watching anime, nor does he force you to give up any rights of expression or creativity that allow you to make your game or flick the way you want. Furthermore you can still publically express what you find attractive or not attractive if you like. So whatever has gone too far, I still fail to see it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course the AMHDotEL 4E would help D&D 4E. I suppose it also has good things to say about Shadowrun 4E, right?
> 
> But let's face it - the 4th edition of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lacks the soul of the OAHDotEL. It's AHDotEL in name only. You just have to look at the anime cover to see that. Anyone using the OAHDoTEL 4E is not really interested in speaking or writing English, he's just looking at a list of words without any flavor or meaning.






Sigged!


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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.



It would more practical to agree upon then list a few defining characteristics of role-playing games and then determine if 4e should be characterized as such. Or is that too reasonable?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

> Language is not pure, no, but the general trend of linguistics over the long term is to allow more concepts to be expressed, and to broaden the number of concepts enveloped within a single term. And drawing a linguistic border to exclude an object from a class in which it should obviously be included is not a good use of language.




I was more making the case that what Clark actually typed might not give a clear indication of what Clark really meant to convey. I would hesitate to use the kind of exegesis that is going on in many posts in this thread to analyze whether he was right or wrong or lying or double-talking or misleading. It seemed very casual to me, not like some sort of well-rehearsed pronouncement of evidence of any sort. The word choice was incidental, not deliberate. It's the freakin' internet, on his own boards, to people who are obviously fans of his and the products that Necro puts out. It was not a speech for a politician in an election year. I think we can cut him some of what the SubGeniuses love. 

All this dogpiling is going to do is probably assure that he won't be as eager to post his thoughts in the future, which would be (is?) something of a shame. The message of "If you can't say _EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN AT ALL TIMES WITH PERFECT CLARITY_, don't say anything at all!" is not a very constructive one in my view. 

That's not to say it was a particularly inspired choice of words or whatever, but that is to say that people are making WAY too big of a deal about it, I think. 

Clark has a personal preference for his games just like anyone else. 4e might not be that preference (though that doesn't mean he won't support it). I doubt 3e is that preference either. I wouldn't be surprised if he still plays a lot of 1e when there are sympathetic players around.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


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




That is an excellent summary of my views. 

I was speaking very personally among friends. Some of the things I dont like might be great for most other people. I was speaking purely of my style of play and preferences. Heck, I think I said some of the same stuff about 3E. I mean, look at our moto, 3E rules, 1E feel. The problem with 4E is it will take a few rules changes to make 4E rules, 1E feel (which 3E didnt really require as much).

What I envision doing (and what I am doing as a personal project) is making a 4E supplement like Monte's Unearthed Arcana was for 3E. Alternate rules that have one goal: restoring 1E feel to D&D.

I dont hate 4E. I like it. I want to support it. One way I want to support it is to provide rules variants. I also want to make adventures. Whoever said I would do 4E stuff without any passion clearly doesnt know me. I'm all about passion. If I dont have passion for it, I wont do it. That has been our whole concept. 

Clark


----------



## Mallus (Oct 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> My previous post was not to claim that it wasn't a roleplaying game. It is on some level...



Then you agree with me. Cool. I like being agreed with...


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

Orcus said:


> That is an excellent summary of my views.
> 
> I was speaking very personally among friends. Some of the things I dont like might be great for most other people. I was speaking purely of my style of play and preferences. Heck, I think I said some of the same stuff about 3E. I mean, look at our moto, 3E rules, 1E feel. The problem with 4E is it will take a few rules changes to make 4E rules, 1E feel (which 3E didnt really require as much).
> 
> ...



It's just, on some level you go "D&D's lost its soul" and I go "Whatchu talkin bout, Willis?" (yes, I know, I'm dating myself) Because to me, the soul of D&D - in terms of the game that the book gives you - has always been in killing things and taking their stuff, and 4E has that in spades. Everything else evolves from play at the table. Only now there's new and interesting ways for guys other than wizards to kill things and take their stuff, which I interpret as an absolute Good because I thought that some of the old ways to kill things and take their stuff was boring, and concentrating so many of the interesting and flavorful ways to kill things and take their stuff in one character gives too much of the spotlight to that guy, who also happens to be the one guy that traditional fantasy doesn't really focus on all that much.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 4, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Then you agree with me. Cool. I like being agreed with...





I think I agree with you too. I wasnt saying that 4E is no longer an RPG. I mean, that would be crazy. Of course its an RPG. My concern is that it has too much reliance on the grid and that stifles options, in my opinion. It feels too much like a mini game, or maybe I should say it has too many mini game concepts hardwired into it for my tastes. I cant fault Wizards for that, their minis sell better than their other stuff and so incorporating that into their core RPG makes business sense. I dont like it so much though  I want to go back to feet and to more freeform movement. I absolutely detest hopping around a grid. 

And as for "anime crap" well I am a big boy and I can take the shots for that. Those were my words. I wont take them back. I'm not trying to offend people, but I can see why that would. I just happen to think that 4E is overpowered and even at real low levels. And that just doesnt fit with how I want my D&D to be. I dont want rangers shooting two arrows out of their bow with one shot at first level. Thats what I was referring to. It was probably wrong of me to call that "anime crap" and to link overpowered stuff to anime. I hope you guys see what I mean by sayinig that, as indelicately as I did  It wasnt fair or accurate of me to link that to anime and I am certainly not dissing that genre at all. But, as they say, you cant unring the bell.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 4, 2008)

So, in summary, this whole thread was caused by a delayed GSL.  

Idle minds - eh, Clark?  

Ha!


----------



## Dark Mistress (Oct 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I have been playing monopoly since I was a kid, with many many different people, and I have yet to play it with anyone who takes the role of an imaginary character.
> 
> "Hello all. I will be playing a character named Bob Simpson tonight. He is a 45 y/o real estate tycoon wanna-be who likes African-American ladies and Long Island ice-teas. His hairline is receding and he is a bit on the heavy side, but most people find him quite funny. He usually wears a grey suit and a brown suit-case at work, and drive a yellow porsche. If he goes to jail, he will probably break down and sit out at least 5 extra rounds, as he had a nasty experience when he was a kid, which left him traumatized and unable to cope with being locked up"
> 
> Do you guys introduce your characters like that in Monopoly? Seriously? For us, it's more like: "I pick the red car, lets roll and see who starts".




I am some friends have, it was actually pretty fun. More so than just a normal game. Including one player leaping from his hotel one he was out of money.(aka he was out of them game) Not something we have done much or often but have done it and it was fun.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

(and just nitpicking here, animation (i.e. anime) is a medium, not a genre. Somebody calling it a genre had best take it up with Brad Bird, but prepare themselves for fisticuffs beforehand (q.v. _The Incredibles_ director commentary  ) )


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I think I agree with you too. I wasnt saying that 4E is no longer an RPG. I mean, that would be crazy. Of course its an RPG. My concern is that it has too much reliance on the grid and that stifles options, in my opinion. It feels too much like a mini game, or maybe I should say it has too many mini game concepts hardwired into it for my tastes. I cant fault Wizards for that, their minis sell better than their other stuff and so incorporating that into their core RPG makes business sense. I dont like it so much though  I want to go back to feet and to more freeform movement. I absolutely detest hopping around a grid.



I am not sure it is that much ingrained into the system. The implementation in form of the existing powers is board-game dependent. But if you add a few more conditions (and use the existing ones more), you could probably come up with a system that doesn't rely that much on positioning. I think they key to making combat with a power system interesting is in allowing for a lot of "emergent" tactics, combining game effects in reaction to other game effects. The grid is the easiest and least artificial way to create such effects.
You can literally see the possible combinations.

Question is - would you want to? Or is all this "positioning" crap not just too much fun to pass up? That's entirely subjective, of course.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> Because to me, the soul of D&D - in terms of the game that the book gives you - has always been in killing things and taking their stuff, and 4E has that in spades



There is an important element missing here: who kills things and takes their staff? Are they robots? are they pirates? are they ninjas? Or something else?



Firevalkyrie said:


> Only now there's new and *interesting* ways for guys other than wizards to kill things and take their stuff



Interesting to you. Not interesting to me. When my PC represents a man fighting and the fight revolves powers or techniques -or whatever name you want to give- that they apply periodically with the same period and are nothing but certain chances to transfer the same certain types of partecipants in the same certain specific directions in nothing but interesting to me. I rather find it silly as it is at odds of how fights are and thus should be represented. 3e has silly elements as well but at least it lacked square transfering stuff so it was less silly I guess. I am all for more options but I am against silly options -silly the way I find them.


----------



## joethelawyer (Oct 4, 2008)

clark are you worried that the future gsl will  not let you do what you want to do with this product, either now or in the future?

have you thought of making it more into a pathfinder add-on that brings some of the better aspects of 4e into pathfinder?


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 4, 2008)

It'll certainly be interesting to see a '4E Arcana Unearthed'; I always hoped more people would follow Monte's example and release true variant Player's Handbooks. I think it would be a fantastic idea to release a true variant for 4E.

I think that trying to recapture a '1E feel' is the wrong way to go, though. That time has passed. If it hadn't, 2E and especially 3E would not have attracted so many players; 3E especially brought players back into the fold - meaning they had been actively driven away by 1E/2E's various little stupidities that don't fare well at all once you've been exposed to other systems.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I think I agree with you too. I wasnt saying that 4E is no longer an RPG. I mean, that would be crazy. Of course its an RPG. My concern is that it has too much reliance on the grid and that stifles options, in my opinion. It feels too much like a mini game, or maybe I should say it has too many mini game concepts hardwired into it for my tastes. I cant fault Wizards for that, their minis sell better than their other stuff and so incorporating that into their core RPG makes business sense. I dont like it so much though  I want to go back to feet and to more freeform movement. I absolutely detest hopping around a grid.




Interesting this comes up around the same time I begin to question the fantastical vs. mundane of D&D in its last two incarnations (with a bit of emphasis on the latest). 

I'm noticing a trend here. Fourth edition, while it may/may not have superior rules, has apparently drifted too far from its typical conventions to be recognized by many as the next version of the same game. For some, its mechanical (vancian wizards and "roll to-hit" fighter) for others its thematic (stormclaw scorpions and Elemental Chaos). While I am currently ejoying 4e, something is nagging at me in the back of my brain, something that occasionally calls to me for something "different", like C&C, Pathfinder, or even 3.5 or BECMI...

So I end up in Clark's position in a sense, I'm enjoying my game because we can role-play despite the rules. I don't miss some of the earlier edition headache's 4e has removed. I like elements of the new world like Dragonborn. I want to support the new edition, but there is _something_ that is nostalgically calling be back that didn't exist when I played 3.5...


----------



## Filcher (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I rather find it silly as it is at odds of how fights are and thus should be represented. 3e has silly elements as well but at least it lacked square transfering stuff so it was less silly I guess. I am all for more options but I am against silly options -silly the way I find them.




It could also be argued that it is silly the way previous editions have combatants slugging it out without ever moving. 

In light of this revelation, I declare 4E to be simulationist.  Previous gamist iterations were less realistic when it came to moving around in combat.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> There is an important element missing here: who kills things and takes their staff? Are they robots? are they pirates? are they ninjas? Or something else?
> 
> 
> Interesting to you. Not interesting to me. When my PC represents a man fighting and the fight revolves powers or techniques -or whatever name you want to give- that they apply periodically with the same period and are nothing but certain chances to transfer the same certain types of partecipants in the same certain specific directions in nothing but interesting to me. I rather find it silly as it is at odds of how fights are and thus should be represented. 3e has silly elements as well but at least it lacked square transfering stuff so it was less silly I guess. I am all for more options but I am against silly options -silly the way I find them.



What the hell is so silly about Tide of Iron? You slash somebody with your sword (or whack them really good with a mace or axe), and then as a follow-up you ram into them with your shield, forcing them back. That's not silly, that's what warriors have been doing for ages. You don't fight statically, you push your enemy into the position you want them to be in - and they are trying to do the same to you.

I guess one of the things that bugs me about the battle grid is that nobody does seem to move; if you're playing the fight in your mind, you are probably quite correctly imagining your character ducking and dodging, constantly moving about to get the best advantage. With the battle grid things look far more static.

At risk of sounding like a fangirl, it's like comparing a battle in Macross with one in Battletech - one is fluid, mobile, dynamic and the other is fixed, positional and rather plodding.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 4, 2008)

I'm not certain that there is much to discuss. Clark dislikes D&D 4e due to how it handles certain things. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Further, his opinion is not fact, nor must anybody else embrace it unless they choose to. So, Clark has an opinion? Good for him. Other people want to embrace it? Good for them. Some people have different opinions? Good for them, too. But what's to _discuss_? To wit, most of what I see in this thread is _complaining_, not discussion.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2008)

MR said:
			
		

> I am not sure it is that much ingrained into the system. The implementation in form of the existing powers is board-game dependent. But if you add a few more conditions (and use the existing ones more), you could probably come up with a system that doesn't rely that much on positioning. I think they key to making combat with a power system interesting is in allowing for a lot of "emergent" tactics, combining game effects in reaction to other game effects. The grid is the easiest and least artificial way to create such effects.
> You can literally see the possible combinations.
> 
> Question is - would you want to? Or is all this "positioning" crap not just too much fun to pass up? That's entirely subjective, of course.




Personally, I'm kind of with Clark in that I don't like the grid so much. It's too much simulation, not enough game, IMO. 

In some of my design work and in my home games, I solve this with an effective "rows" system. Either you're in melee, or you're at range. When at range, you can't fire into melee. When in melee, you can't fire at range. There is no positioning fiddly bits. There is no real "tactical movement."

But there is the abstraction of tactical movement. The battlefield has options if you want to use them. Say what you want to do (maybe climb a wall to a ledge for a better shot?). Make a skill check (maybe Atheltics?). Get some miscellaneous bonus (+2?). If someone wants to take that bonus away from you, they can make a skill check (maybe their own Athletics check to climb up on the wall next to you?). 

There aren't Opportunity Attacks. Reach isn't much of an issue (some monsters with long tentacles can melee creatures at range maybe). Size scales much more smoothly. 

It works pretty well for my purposes. It kind of defeats a lot of the "feet" measurements that longtime D&D fans adore, and yes, it dismisses a lot of the tactical movement, but getting rid of tactical movement was something I wanted because I don't like it.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> It could also be argued that it is silly the way previous editions have combatants slugging it out without ever moving.
> 
> In light of this revelation, I declare 4E to be simulationist.  Previous gamist iterations were less realistic when it came to moving around in combat.



They did not consider moving around at all. They were not realistic because they did not depict at all how movement could indeed happen. 4e does depict it but wrong (IMHO). So I can not possibly say that 4e is more simulationist. In fact 3e allows me more space to create my own rules regarding movement.



Firevalkyrie said:


> What the hell is so silly about Tide of Iron? You slash somebody with your sword (or whack them really good with a mace or axe), and then as a follow-up you ram into them with your shield, forcing them back. That's not silly, that's what warriors have been doing for ages. You don't fight statically, you push your enemy into the position you want them to be in - and they are trying to do the same to you.




I find silly the fact that you can decide when you can pull off (as of chances) exactly the same trick. I think combat action is based on the respective values or properties of the partecipants and the area around them than specifc tricks. You could rarely have the same chance of pulling the same trick -even more in a periodic fashion- hence tricks are irrelevant as the base of the combat system. It could happen something that seems what tide of iron describes but its randomness has nothing to do the way 4e calculates it IMO.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 4, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> At risk of sounding like a fangirl, it's like comparing a battle in Macross with one in Battletech - one is fluid, mobile, dynamic and the other is fixed, positional and rather plodding.




At the risk of sounding sarcastic, well, duh.
There's a big difference in presentation between an animated series, bound by the animator's imagination and craft, and a balanced, structured game. And there's a big difference between either and reality... where I suspect a battle between giant, anthropoid robots would probably be positional and plodding... assuming there were even a realistic military case to be made for big, vulnerable, expensive mecha.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 4, 2008)

Dark Mistress said:


> I am some friends have, it was actually pretty fun. More so than just a normal game. Including one player leaping from his hotel one he was out of money.(aka he was out of them game) Not something we have done much or often but have done it and it was fun.




Yeah, well I have played "burglar and lonely housewife" with the missus as well, and it was fun. Still, that doesn't make sex a roleplaying game.

Cheers


----------



## Jack Colby (Oct 4, 2008)

I have long wished that Necro would make their own game or version of the game, and support Clark 100% if he wants to do this.  I'd buy it and play it instead of official 4E.  I really, really hope he goes through with it and doesn't just toss around ideas then leave it be.  It would fill a niche that has _long_ needed filling: a game for those of us who love the tone and atmosphere of the older editions, but not the cumbersome rules.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 4, 2008)

billd91 said:


> At the risk of sounding sarcastic, well, duh.
> There's a big difference in presentation between an animated series, bound by the animator's imagination and craft, and a balanced, structured game. And there's a big difference between either and reality... where I suspect a battle between giant, anthropoid robots would probably be positional and plodding... assuming there were even a realistic military case to be made for big, vulnerable, expensive mecha.



This is the sound of somebody pretty much missing the point (by the way, thanks for the added and unnecessary tangent of "mecha aren't realistic," anybody with half a brain already knows that).

The point was, you can have the exact same things acting in completely different ways, and in this case the primary separator is the need to display them on a tactical battle grid.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2008)

The *speed* at which people turned on Clark like a group of rabid dogs made me laugh on the inside.

For a group that says "Don't think hard about fantasy," you guys REALLY have a lot of emotional investment in this.


----------



## jensun (Oct 5, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The *speed* at which people turned on Clark like a group of rabid dogs made me laugh on the inside.
> 
> For a group that says "Don't think hard about fantasy," you guys REALLY have a lot of emotional investment in this.




Edit: Just read his statement, must learn to do my own research rather than relying on other peoples posts.

Yes, I agree, pretty much an overreaction.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 5, 2008)

Goodness gracious, I dont hate 4E 

I like 4E. I do think it is missing something--the 1E feel that I love. The "soul", if you will. I had the same issue with 3E. Heck, Necro came into being because I wanted to put that feel back into 3E. I loved 3E too. I just happen to feel that to restore the 1E soul to 4E will require some rules changes or alternatives. 3E didnt need that. That is NOT the same as hating 4E. 

If I have a negative tone, it comes from my frustration with the GSL revision process, not from 4E. I like 4E. My game group and I have had fun playing it. So I guess if I hate it I'm not sure why I would be playing it, which is exactly what I am doing 

I just happen to think I can "improve" it from my standpoint to be closer to what I want it to be. I may be arrogant (which I am  ) but I am not arrogant enough to think that what is an improvement for me is an improvement for everyone. I am only talking about my tastes. And I was talking to a relatively like minded audience when I said "4E done right," which probably should be stated 4E with the 1E feel restored (which is 4E done right in my view). Please keep in mind the audience.  To a 1E friendly audience they knew what I mean with "4E done right". But I dont hate 4E, far from it. Heck, I am dying to support it. And I am actively playing it. I just find it is missing a certain something that I think I can put back in and that maybe there are some other people who would be interested in what I did. Or maybe not. YMMV. 

Its sort of funny because the people over on the Necro boards are shaking their heads wondering how on ENWorld my comments are being construed as me being anti-4E. Funny how its all about perspective...

Clark


----------



## Kishin (Oct 5, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The *speed* at which people turned on Clark like a group of rabid dogs made me laugh on the inside.
> 
> For a group that says "Don't think hard about fantasy," you guys REALLY have a lot of emotional investment in this.




For the amount you get riled up about '4E fanbois', your emotional investment is clearly as significant. I believe there's a story about a pot and a kettle that might be meaningful in this case.

I don't see -any- vituperative assault on Clark in this thread. I haven't noticed a single name being called. But as I said once already, when someone does a blatant 180 like that, its obviously going to turn some heads and invite its fair share of criticms and 'eh, what?"s from the crowd. Clark even acknowledged this, and it doesn't look to me like he's had his feelings hurt.

His opinion is his opinion. But you can't tell people not to react to someone who was vocally in favor of one position switching to the other side without a characteristically human skepticism. Hypocrisy, real or imagined (And no, I'm not saying Clark is a hypocrite, hence -imagined-) tends to bother everyone.



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> If I have a negative tone, it comes from my frustration with the GSL revision process, not from 4E.



I think this is something we can all get behind.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think that trying to recapture a '1E feel' is the wrong way to go, though. That time has passed.




Now, I haven't played (or desired to play) 1E in quite awhile. However, as far as 'the time has passed' and nostalgia goes....The amount of hours I've spent playing Mega Man 9 this week beg to differ with you.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 5, 2008)

Orcus said:


> It wasnt fair or accurate of me to link that to anime and I am certainly not dissing that genre at all. But, as they say, you cant unring the bell.




Don't worry - the guy who made "Grave of the Fireflies" probably knew you weren't talking about him.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 5, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> I think that trying to recapture a '1E feel' is the wrong way to go, though. That time has passed. If it hadn't, 2E and especially 3E would not have attracted so many players; 3E especially brought players back into the fold - meaning they had been actively driven away by 1E/2E's various little stupidities that don't fare well at all once you've been exposed to other systems.




EDIT:
What you call "stupidity", I call good game design and in fact the very principles of design that invented this silly hobby in the first place. And I will leave it at that.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Oct 5, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> I think that trying to recapture a '1E feel' is the wrong way to go, though. That time has passed. If it hadn't, 2E and especially 3E would not have attracted so many players; 3E especially brought players back into the fold - meaning they had been actively driven away by 1E/2E's various little stupidities that don't fare well at all once you've been exposed to other systems.





Some of use like those things alot. 4E is not my game since it killed many of the area that make me like d&d. Sure there other systems and I play them that's all 4e is, Another system. Since it clearly to me is no longer d&d. If someone can make it feel like d&d again , well that may be worth looking at.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 5, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> 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.




What!? Now I realize I really did wake up in crazy town...

Are you insane? Claiming D&D isn't a roleplaying game? I don't care how much people say they played the game, read the rules, or tried to like the game. If you can come to the conclusion that 4e isn't even a roleplaying game, I'm sorry to inform you that you are living in denial and you have preconceived notions of the game in the first place.

I don't really mind the bickering back and fourth on editions, its expected and aside from the occasional snarky bit I don't mind it. But trying to tell me the 4e isn't a roleplaying game? Come on. You're right about one thing, somebody is smoking something. Problem is I don't think it's anyone at WotC.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2008)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I foresee some unfortunate consequences if some folks in here do not either agree to disagree, or begin to show rather more respect for others than they are currently displaying.

I do not believe I should need to be more specific than that.  Please be on your best behavior, cut the snark and sarcasm, and generally accept that others are allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours, and that there is no such thing as winning the thread.


----------



## Delta (Oct 5, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> I think that trying to recapture a '1E feel' is the wrong way to go, though. That time has passed. If it hadn't, 2E and especially 3E would not have attracted so many players; 3E especially brought players back into the fold - meaning they had been actively driven away by 1E/2E's various little stupidities that don't fare well at all once you've been exposed to other systems.




Many would have a different interpretation: 1E had many dedicated players, 2E drove them away, 3E brought them back (by embracing many 1E themes), and 4E drove many away again (by discarding those themes).

Look at the recent poll of what editions people would like to play. 1E beats 2E by a handy amount.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 5, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Then you agree with me. Cool. I like being agreed with...




Um..... Yes, actually.



JVisgaitis said:


> What!? Now I realize I really did wake up in crazy town...
> 
> Are you insane? Claiming D&D isn't a roleplaying game? I don't care how much people say they played the game, read the rules, or tried to like the game. If you can come to the conclusion that 4e isn't even a roleplaying game, I'm sorry to inform you that you are living in denial and you have preconceived notions of the game in the first place.
> 
> I don't really mind the bickering back and fourth on editions, its expected and aside from the occasional snarky bit I don't mind it. But trying to tell me the 4e isn't a roleplaying game? Come on. You're right about one thing, somebody is smoking something. Problem is I don't think it's anyone at WotC.




This rant brought to you by misinterpretation and not reading any further in the thread.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 5, 2008)

Orcus said:


> Goodness gracious, I dont hate 4E
> 
> I like 4E. I do think it is missing something--the 1E feel that I love. The "soul", if you will. I had the same issue with 3E. Heck, Necro came into being because I wanted to put that feel back into 3E. I loved 3E too. I just happen to feel that to restore the 1E soul to 4E will require some rules changes or alternatives. 3E didnt need that. That is NOT the same as hating 4E.
> 
> ...




Many people love to misread things. Hoping I am understanding you like the game that is 4th edition but feel in your heart it does not exude the same response as AD&D did from you, you feel 4th is missing something for what it added.

If that is in essence what you were saying, then I wish you luck adding back the missing AD&D bits you feel were left out and can't wait to see what (if) happens under the new GSL or without it.

If I misread what you said then feel free to flog and flay me. (You choose the order.)


----------



## Dark Mistress (Oct 5, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Yeah, well I have played "burglar and lonely housewife" with the missus as well, and it was fun. Still, that doesn't make sex a roleplaying game.
> 
> Cheers




Didn't say it was, you was implying people couldn't RP with it. i was only saying you could. You can RP just about anything if you want to.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 5, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I think I agree with you too. I wasnt saying that 4E is no longer an RPG. I mean, that would be crazy. Of course its an RPG. My concern is that it has too much reliance on the grid and that stifles options, in my opinion. It feels too much like a mini game, or maybe I should say it has too many mini game concepts hardwired into it for my tastes. I cant fault Wizards for that, their minis sell better than their other stuff and so incorporating that into their core RPG makes business sense. I dont like it so much though  I want to go back to feet and to more freeform movement. I absolutely detest hopping around a grid.
> 
> And as for "anime crap" well I am a big boy and I can take the shots for that. Those were my words. I wont take them back. I'm not trying to offend people, but I can see why that would. I just happen to think that 4E is overpowered and even at real low levels. And that just doesnt fit with how I want my D&D to be.* I dont want rangers shooting two arrows out of their bow with one shot at first level. *Thats what I was referring to. It was probably wrong of me to call that "anime crap" and to link overpowered stuff to anime. I hope you guys see what I mean by sayinig that, as indelicately as I did  It wasnt fair or accurate of me to link that to anime and I am certainly not dissing that genre at all. But, as they say, you cant unring the bell.





No one's going to take the Rapid Shot feat? Dang it!

No option to use one dagger in each hand and then the rapid shot? 

Blast!


----------



## Imp (Oct 5, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> No one's going to take the Rapid Shot feat? Dang it!



Your magic missiles strike the gazebo.


----------



## Allister (Oct 5, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Don't worry - the guy who made "Grave of the Fireflies" probably knew you weren't talking about him.




*Chuckle*

Yeah, couldnt be the Wings of Honneaise guy either...

Honestly, I really respect you Clark and I really like some of your products but can I give you a word of advice?

To the 21 and under crowd, you come off as totally ignorant about anime. These days, most anime fans EASILY have access to things like GotF et al and it makes you come off as a totally "old" cranky guy Jack Thompson, he of the videogame crowd

Anime is such a huge part of the 21 and under crowd that simply lumping it in as just "naruto/bleach" makes you come across as old dude whose no longer connected to what your target market actually likes.

When D&D was huge in the 80s, it was "the anime" (hell, even here I disagree with myself since anime has had much larger penetration).


----------



## Halivar (Oct 5, 2008)

After reading Clark's response, I retract my whole "lack of passion" comment (yeah, that was me [sorry!]). I think, in retrospect, that Clark has been taken out of context.







			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I'm not certain that there is much to discuss. Clark dislikes D&D 4e due to how it handles certain things.



Sounds more like (again, in retrospect and after hearing from Clark himself) that he *likes* 4e *despite* how it handles certain things. The same could be said of any player and any system (even their favorite).

All in all, it is much to do over nothing. The fanboi's haven't lost a favorite publisher, and teh haters haven't gained a convert. Also, expect some alternative houserules from Necro.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 5, 2008)

Orcus said:


> Its sort of funny because the people over on the Necro boards are shaking their heads wondering how on ENWorld my comments are being construed as me being anti-4E. Funny how its all about perspective...
> 
> Clark



Well, I think the perspective here is that you said almost word for word several things that have been decried as "hater" talk on these boards.  Seriously, amongst certain groups, the comparisons you made are total heresy.  Or at least they were until some magic happened today....  And I fully expect they will be again next time anyone *else* dares suggest them.

Now I agree that saying those things doesn't make you an actual hater any more than it makes me an actual hater.  But I have a hard time seeing how it is suddenly ok to say that 4E is to much mini game and not enough roleplaying game when it has been an instant sentence to the "hater" cells before today.
And I very much understand the difference between stating a personal opinion and proclaiming a "truth".  But again, no such allowance has been provided to anyone else up to this day.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 5, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> I think that trying to recapture a '1E feel' is the wrong way to go, though.



I agree, although for very different reasons.  I think the best way to capture 1E feel is to play first edition.  I tried doing 1E feel with 3E for a long time, but it didn't work out, for me.



> ...[players] had been actively driven away by 1E/2E's various little stupidities that don't fare well at all once you've been exposed to other systems.



I think it's a lot more complicated than that (although certainly 2E drove me away -- I abandoned it).  And I definitely don't think that the TSR editions' qualities are necessarily "stupidities," although I can see how someone approaching the game with a different set of assumptions and expectations would dislike them.  I've been exposed to lots of other systems, but I much prefer OD&D or AD&D over the newer variants.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 5, 2008)

Dark Mistress said:


> Didn't say it was, you was implying people couldn't RP with it. i was only saying you could. You can RP just about anything if you want to.




Actually, that was precisely my point. You can RP with just about anything (sex monopoly), *but that doesn't make it a roleplaying game.* On the other hand, games like D&D, which more or less require it, are by definition roleplaying games.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 5, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Well, I think the perspective here is that you said almost word for word several things that have been decried as "hater" talk on these boards.  Seriously, amongst certain groups, the comparisons you made are total heresy.  Or at least they were until some magic happened today....  And I fully expect they will be again next time anyone *else* dares suggest them.




Maybe he was cut some slack 'cause it was suspected what he really meant? If you had posted the same, we also would have known what you meant, so the reaction might have been different?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 5, 2008)

Filcher said:


> This. There are certain elements of 4E that aren't clear until you actually play the game. Classes are NOT interchangeable --- anyone who has played in a lopsided party and a balanced party can tell you this.
> 
> It's just like AD&D --- if you don't bring a fighter, a thief, m-u and cleric ... you're screwed. This is true of any (and every) Gygaxian dungeon. Sure, once you have the major food groups, feel free to add on the thief-acrobats and cavaliers, but if you take them and exclude the core classes, you are toast.
> 
> True in AD&D. True in 4E.




Bull.  We've ran all thief campaigns, all mage, and no cleric games on a regular basis.  In AD&D it worked just fine.  And with dms who let the dice fall as they may.  Of course back then we weren't tenderfoots - tenderfeet?


----------



## Kishin (Oct 5, 2008)

Allister said:


> Anime is such a huge part of the 21 and under crowd that simply lumping it in as just "naruto/bleach" makes you come across as old dude whose no longer connected to what your target market actually likes.




I'd say its wider than just the 21 and under crowd. There's a significant portion of mid twenties anime fans and even early 30s, as the genesis of its popularity really started in the mid 90s.



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> When D&D was huge in the 80s, it was "the anime" (hell, even here I disagree with myself since anime has had much larger penetration).




D&D has had significant influence on anime, ironically. Record of Lodoss War was based off an actual D&D campaign, and one doesn't need to look very hard at series like Berserk to see where it continued.

I guess what goes around comes around? *duck*



			
				Halivar said:
			
		

> All in all, it is much to do over nothing. The fanboi's haven't lost a favorite publisher, and teh haters haven't gained a convert. Also, expect some alternative houserules from Necro.




Good sir, this is the internet and we have a reputation to maintain. We simply must fight about this for another five or six pages, minimum.

In all seriousness, Clark's gone and made himself pretty abundantly clear here, and everyone who was surprised by the turn of events already explained their reasoning why.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Oct 5, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Actually, that was precisely my point. You can RP with just about anything (sex monopoly), *but that doesn't make it a roleplaying game.* On the other hand, games like D&D, which more or less require it, are by definition roleplaying games.




Which I wasn't disagree with, I only said something cause you basicaly asked if anyone had done that with monopoly and well I have. So just thought I would point out that while I imagine it is rare it happens is all.

What is or is not a RP game is subjective. I don't consider MMO's to be one but it is part of their name and many people RP in them, even if they are a minority.

This is not directed at you Jack, I just think trying to define what is or is not a RPG is kinda silly. Since almost anything you can RP with, so then what makes a RPG? Me personally i think it is the people playing it. But what each of us considers a true RPG is going to be different.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 5, 2008)

Dark Mistress said:


> This is not directed at you Jack, I just think trying to define what is or is not a RPG is kinda silly. Since almost anything you can RP with, so then what makes a RPG? Me personally i think it is the people playing it. But what each of us considers a true RPG is going to be different.




I agree. It's kinda a silly discussion. But so was the idea that sparked the debate, that 4e isn't a RPG.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 5, 2008)

Allister said:


> Anime is such a huge part of the 21 and under crowd that simply lumping it in as just "naruto/bleach" makes you come across as old dude whose no longer connected to what your target market actually likes.




Why do you feel that is Clark's audience? I certainly don't feel it is- and I suspect Clark would agree. His target audience are people who grew up playing 1E in D&D's heyday- not the under 21 anime crowd.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 5, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> This rant brought to you by misinterpretation and not reading any further in the thread.




I didn't read further until this morning. My apologies. That was totally uncalled for. I shouldn't respond late at night when I'm half asleep.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 5, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Maybe he was cut some slack 'cause it was suspected what he really meant? If you had posted the same, we also would have known what you meant, so the reaction might have been different?



Huh? I have posted very much the same.
And it seems very clear to me that "what he really meant" and what I "really meant" were pretty much the same thing.

The only difference I see in your post is an implication of a double standard in that other people elected to "suspect" the words of Clark differently than mine.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Why do you feel that is Clark's audience? I certainly don't feel it is- and I suspect Clark would agree. His target audience are people who grew up playing 1E in D&D's heyday- not the under 21 anime crowd.



I guess I'm part of the under 21 anime crowd. *Oh wait, I'm 31 years old.

* If you get to say that _Naruto_ is fully representative of fantasy anime, then _I_ get to say that the _Sword of Truth_ series is fully representative of Western fantasy. Seriously, people, "anime" does not mean "any full-color fantasy illustration not done by Larry Elmore." And it certainly doesn't mean "any fantasy trope that I don't like."

Allister is right. Anybody who is only marketing to the people who grew up playing 1E back in 1980-84 _and who still want to game in that style today_ is following a losing strategy, because the vast majority of those people don't have the time or the interest to play D&D anymore. There are some, granted, but I don't really think that comprises a large enough percentage of modern gaming 26 years later (taking an averaging of that time period) to be worth chasing to the exclusion of all others.

Hell, dude. I grew up playing a hybridized mixture of 1E/2E in the 90s, and I wouldn't go back to that if you paid me.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 5, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I agree. It's kinda a silly discussion. But so was the idea that sparked the debate, that 4e isn't a RPG.



But there is a bait and switch that has been going on for months now.

I agree 100% that 4E is an RPG.  
However, there has been post after post that simply proclaims that because you can roleplay to one RPG the same way you roleplay to other RPGs, that the first one does the job just as well.  And the only way that can be true is if the person saying it doesn't really use *ANY* RPG well.

Of course monopoly is not an RPG.  But the fact that you can roleplay it demonstrates that simply being able to roleplay on top of the game mechanics is not an adequate definition of a GOOD RPG.  Players have demands and expectations of what the mechanics will add to the roleplaying experience.  If the mechanics of a system don't meet that demand, then it isn't adequate.  It is entirely reasonable for individuals to find 4E to not be up to their standards.    Rather than accepting this and moving on the conversation typically degrades into one or both of the follow aburdities:
"So you aren't good enough to RP this game, eh?"  (which is usually the opposite of the real issue)  or
"So it isn't an RPG, eh?"

Forcing a question that is both subjective and highly relative to be placed in an absolute "yes / no" is a bad way to communicate.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> I guess I'm part of the under 21 anime crowd. *Oh wait, I'm 31 years old.
> 
> * If you get to say that _Naruto_ is fully representative of fantasy anime, then _I_ get to say that the _Sword of Truth_ series is fully representative of Western fantasy. Seriously, people, "anime" does not mean "any full-color fantasy illustration not done by Larry Elmore." And it certainly doesn't mean "any fantasy trope that I don't like."
> 
> ...





I didn't bring it up- someone stated Clark was going to seem out of touch to the under 21 anime crowd- and making reference to that being his audience. 

I don't care if you are 31 and like anime- I don't care if you feel the fundamentals of Necromancer games'  mission statement is a losing strategy. It is what it is- And I don't think Clark is going to change Necro's mission statement to cater to a segment of gamers he's not really concerned with. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.


Necormancer's success as 3PP company I think proves  that the "1E feel" market segment is bigger than you'd like to think. 

PS I don't think you are the target audience at all- When you were not even born/just being born I and many similar Necro customers were already playing D&D- AFAIC you entirely a differernt Generation of D&D fan.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

JeffB said:


> I didn't bring it up- someone stated Clark was going to seem out of touch to the under 21 anime crowd- and making reference to that being his audience.
> 
> I don't care if you are 31 and like anime- I don't care if you feel the fundamentals of Necromancer games'  mission statement is a losing strategy. It is what it is- And I don't think Clark is going to change Necro's mission statement to cater to a segment of gamers he's not really concerned with. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
> 
> ...



In a few hours I'm going to be downloading _Mega Man 9_ on my Wii, which is about as retro a modern video game as you can GET. _Mega Man 9_ is done in the playstyle of _Mega Man 2_, complete, old-school, Nintendo-Hard retro platform shooter. But at the same time there are gamers who will swear on a stack of bibles that modern video games are nothing but full 3D out the arse looks-good-plays-bad, conveniently ignoring that for every _Mega Man_ there were a dozen _Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu_s. 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.

In other words, "You remember mostly the good stuff, get over yourself." If you don't come after me trying to convince me that my playstyle sucks, I don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in _your_ basement.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> In other words, "You remember mostly the good stuff, get over yourself." If you don't come after me trying to convince me that my playstyle sucks, I don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in _your_ basement.



I was following you until this last, very dismissive, point.

Just so that you know, there are people that truly enjoy old games. I like AD&D not because of nostalgia, but because I have lot of fun playing it. In the last game that I ran, out of 5 players, only one had previous experience with AD&D. All the rest had played several other systems and 3e. All of them enjoyed it.

This, of course, doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that AD&D is popular among the majority of gamers... but there are people who like old games and not because of "rose-colored" lenses or any of that nonsense.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> I was following you until this last, very dismissive, point.
> 
> Just so that you know, there are people that truly enjoy old games. I like AD&D not because of nostalgia, but because I have lot of fun playing it. In the last game that I ran, out of 5 players, only one had previous experience with AD&D. All the rest had played several other systems and 3e. All of them enjoyed it.
> 
> This, of course, doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that AD&D is popular among the majority of gamers... but there are people who like old games and not because of "rose-colored" lenses or any of that nonsense.



I'm not saying I didn't enjoy AD&D (I did, but more modern D&D variants suit my playstyle progressively better, so I prefer those versions... when 5E comes out in 2016-2018 I'll either go "This fits my playstyle so much better than 4E!" or I'll go "This sucks, why did they change everything that's cool about D&D!?"). But rose-colored glasses are a fact of psychology whether you acknowledge their existence or not (there's also poop-colored glasses for those who hate the past, but that really kind of fits into the same paradigm because the same people often view the present with rose-colored glasses). Everybody reinterprets the past in the context of their present experience, that is simply a fact of how the human brain works.

About 2013 I intend to start paying REALLY scrupulous attention to what's going on in indie gaming, because that will probably herald what's likely to go into 5th Edition, just as 4th Edition takes cues from the exceptions-based approach and social conflict rules championed by the indie games that came out in the 2004-2007 timeframe.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> In a few hours I'm going to be downloading _Mega Man 9_ on my Wii, which is about as retro a modern video game as you can GET. _Mega Man 9_ is done in the playstyle of _Mega Man 2_, complete, old-school, Nintendo-Hard retro platform shooter. But at the same time there are gamers who will swear on a stack of bibles that modern video games are nothing but full 3D out the arse looks-good-plays-bad, conveniently ignoring that for every _Mega Man_ there were a dozen _Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu_s. 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.
> 
> In other words, "You remember mostly the good stuff, get over yourself." If you don't come after me trying to convince me that my playstyle sucks, I don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in _your_ basement.




And all of this is relevant to what I've been talking about how?


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> Everybody reinterprets the past in the context of their present experience, that is simply a fact of how the human brain works.



And how exactly is my group reinterpreting the past, since we are enjoying AD&D *right now* (and several of the players had never played it before)?


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

JeffB said:


> And all of this is relevant to what I've been talking about how?



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?


----------



## scruffygrognard (Oct 5, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Setting aside that what it means for you doesn't help me understand Orcus, here
> 
> What you say doesn't really give me any information.  You see, from where I sit, every major edition change has been a "wholly different game" - 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e - all wholly different in my own estimations.  Thus, I have learned nothing about the specific issues he may have, or in what direction his rewrite would go.




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 races 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).


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> And how exactly is my group reinterpreting the past, since we are enjoying AD&D *right now* (and several of the players had never played it before)?



Great, good for you. I'm not saying you shouldn't. What I am saying is that a lot of people see "old" and "good" as synonymous when they aren't, there was a lot of drek you had to plow through to find the good stuff, then as now. The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs. They weren't necessarily _bad_ games, but they were badly _designed_, in the sense that their design did not result in a fully satisfactory play experience without significant user customization.

In that respect, 3E and 4E are considerably better _designs_, as they can be played pretty much straight out of the book without much in the way of house-rule tinkering.

Personally, old school D&D does not any longer appeal to what I find to be fun. It did once. I remember it being fun, and not just because I didn't know any better; but my playstyle has changed in 15 years and fortunately for me, D&D has changed largely in sync with my playstyle, to become more narrative and game oriented over pretensions of reality-simulation, which I find more and more in my opinion to be what Twain described as puce Christmas trees appended to the clean line of a game's prose.

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


----------



## xechnao (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> But don't arrogate yourself to tell me that I'm having fun the wrong way.




Unfortunately this, to a certain degree, is inevitable . It seems here though you are more considered in rising the flames than what ever else could be done. Just my impression, that obviously could be wrong.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


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




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.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Oct 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

cperkins said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

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 (Oct 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2008)

JeffB said:


> WHAT?
> 
> Heres what went down in this thread
> 
> ...





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


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 5, 2008)

Delta said:


> 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.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 5, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Bull.  We've ran all thief campaigns, all mage, and no cleric games on a regular basis.  In AD&D it worked just fine.  And with dms who let the dice fall as they may.  Of course back then we weren't tenderfoots - tenderfeet?




Sure, you can run an all thief _campaign_ (and like yourself, I did too --- my favorite campaign of all time was an all thief City of Greyhawk game) ... but I remain unconvinced that a band of thieves could make a go at the D or Q series and make it out alive.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 5, 2008)

Edited: Deleted post. 

This is stupid. We're fighting AD&D vs. 4E again. I love both for different reasons. Abstaining from argument, and I hope to buy Clark's variant book whenever/if-ever it comes out.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs. They weren't necessarily _bad_ games, but they were badly _designed_, in the sense that their design did not result in a fully satisfactory play experience without significant user customization.




Except that is the _entire point_ of them: you're _supposed_ to customize them to your own taste. It's a plastic model kit of a T-34 that you're supposed to modify to make a T-34 obr 41, T-34 obr 42, T-34-obr 43, T-35/57, OT-34 or PT-34 depending on what you want it to be. It's not any specific tank, it's the hull and the components to make it whichever specific tank you're modelling.

I don't know why I'm even responding to you. Your rude and dismissive posts act as if nobody plays old school games _now_. I play them now, with some people who never played them in "the old days". That's not rose-tinted nothin.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 5, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Sure, you can run an all thief _campaign_ (and like yourself, I did too --- my favorite campaign of all time was an all thief City of Greyhawk game) ... but I remain unconvinced that a band of thieves could make a go at the D or Q series and make it out alive.




Never tried it with an all thief group, but we did it sans cleric and thief.  IIRC, we had a f/mu, an mu, a ranger, and a fighter.  We ran this group through almost EVERY D&D module published at the time, until they died in the ToH.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> Great, good for you. I'm not saying you shouldn't. What I am saying is that a lot of people see "old" and "good" as synonymous when they aren't, there was a lot of drek you had to plow through to find the good stuff, then as now. The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs. They weren't necessarily _bad_ games, but they were badly _designed_, in the sense that their design did not result in a fully satisfactory play experience without significant user customization.




I'm playing AD&D now, after a short hiatus for 3e to piss off our group.  We have ONE house rule.  A nat 20 does double damage, that's it.  One hardly constitutes a lot.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Its sort of funny because the people over on the Necro boards are shaking their heads wondering how on ENWorld my comments are being construed as me being anti-4E.






			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> This is crazy blown out of proportion over here.




I feel ya. I really do. I think the reason I was able to basically grok the post was because I've been in this situation before over here.  I am still a little surprised that posters are so quick to take offense, but it's the Internet, so maybe I shouldn't be.  



			
				Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> 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."




Subjectivity, mon ami. This isn't an argument that can be won.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 5, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I think I agree with you too. I wasnt saying that 4E is no longer an RPG.



You know, this being agreed with thing is still not getting old...

Seriously though, good luck with the 4e products if you decide to do them (have they fixed the GSL yet?). It would be a shame if the only take on 4e came from WotC. I was a big fan of Monte's Arcana Evolved/Arcana Unearthed, and I'm really looking forward to alternate versions/uses/implementations of the new system.

As an aside, the first thing my group did with 4e, after skimming the books, was to put them down and create a brand new homebrew (we documented the process here, it's the second link in my .sig --sorry, we're proud of it, so pimp it I must!) That's how we're 'old-school', we like the DIY spirit that assumes the players/DM are responsible for making the game the want to be playing. Again, looking forward to seeing what you do cook up doing the same.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 5, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> I didn't read further until this morning. My apologies. That was totally uncalled for. I shouldn't respond late at night when I'm half asleep.




I apologize for snapping back. I agree that it's not a good idea to respond late at night when half asleep.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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.
> 
> In other words, "You remember mostly the good stuff, get over yourself."  If you don't come after me trying to convince me that my playstyle sucks, I don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in your basement.



Oh, please.  I won't defend anyone who says your preferences suck because you're playing wrong (i.e. not the one true game), but this "rose-tinted" thing is just ridiculous (and exactly the kind of attitude that you're condemning with the other hand, in that last sentence).  I've heard it often enough that I have a cut-and-paste response:



			
				Philotomy said:
			
		

> For some reason, when I tell other gamers I'm playing OD&D (or AD&D, or B/X, et cetera), I often hear comments about my "rose colored glasses." I find this both odd and annoying. The idea behind "rose colored glasses" is that your perception is being altered, and that you aren't seeing things as they truly are. If you're "looking back through rose colored glasses," it means that you're not seeing clearly, with the implication that time has tricked your memory, making the past seem better than it actually was. You only see the good stuff through the rose colored glasses. So this is a neat turn of phrase, a flippant dismissal of any fond feelings for older editions like OD&D. Nevertheless, while glib, the phrase doesn't apply to me and my enthusiasm for OD&D.
> 
> Rose colored glasses only "work" when you're looking back on an experience. Once you actually go back and experience it, again, the glasses stop working. At that point, the experience must stand or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not looking back fondly on OD&D, I'm currently playing it. When I say I like it, it's not because rose colored glasses have skewed my perception of the past; it's because I like the experience I'm currently having. Rose colored glasses? Nope.




Edit -- reading more, I see others have already made this point...


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs...In that respect, 3E and 4E are considerably better _designs_...



You're assuming that "complete design playable exactly as written" is always better.  (I might also quibble about whether BECMI, especially, is playable as written, but that's a tangent.)  From my point of view, the "toolkit" nature of OD&D is a huge feature that I like.  3E and 4E are definitely not better designs for me and my preferred approach to the game.



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



Don't worry, I won't.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 5, 2008)

As the original person who used the "crusty" comment, I do think Orcus did come across as "ignorant" about anime.

Take Record of Lodoss Wars for example. There's a reason why many D&D/anime fans consider it the greatest D&D adaptation and that's old school D&D.

Yet, Orcus and his supporters are stating "oh no, we don't want that type of gaming" when they say D&D has become too anime.

Sorry, but I'm still stunned that D&D players can hold their noses up in the air about anime.....geez, there's like almost 50/50 breakdown of boys and girls in anime communities and this is what D&D fans are holding their noses against?


----------



## Halivar (Oct 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> geez, there's like almost 50/50 breakdown of boys and girls in anime communities and this is what D&D fans are holding their noses against?



LOL, I'm sorry, but speaking as someone who has loved and cherished anime since Robotech first aired in the states in '85, I think you're being too generous. I know one girl who is a gamer, and that's one more than any female anime fans I know.

That said, I don't think Clark would have a problem with RoLW, which is almost 100% OD&D flavored. Perhaps he has more of a beef with the "kiddie" (as in, it was made, specifically, for children) anime like DBZ and Naruto with "WOW K3WL POWERZ!!11!one!1!eleven!" I sometimes game with people who are strongly influenced by this genre, and I must admit it can negatively impact the game... _for me_.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 5, 2008)

Is this thread for real? Let me get this straight, (1) some dude on the Internet goes to his own message boards (where presumably people who like to buy his stuff hang out) and says "You know, this game some other company published is pretty cool, but it really isn't my favorite flavor. I think I can take some of its innovations and make a better game that." and (2) people here jump up and down on his head shouting "You think my taste in games suck, do you? Well you suck!"

Jeez people, chill. 4E has "good engineering" (the game works, functionally), so whether or not 4E is any "good" is clearly a subjective opinion. If Clark said he didn't like chocolate ice cream (and you did), would you get this upset? I hope not.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 5, 2008)

Halivar said:


> That said, I don't think Clark would have a problem with RoLW, which is almost 100% OD&D flavored. Perhaps he has more of a beef with the "kiddie" (as in, it was made, specifically, for children) anime like DBZ and Naruto with "WOW K3WL POWERZ!!11!one!1!eleven!" I sometimes game with people who are strongly influenced by this genre, and I must admit it can negatively impact the game... _for me_.




Agreed (once I googled what the heck RotLW was supposed to be and figured out what you were talking about).  I think a lot of people looking for the "old school" feel would say that RotLW "is" D&D, and that Naruto or Final Fantasy "are not" D&D because of the powers.  By that definition, 4E is not D&D.

Not sayin' whether I agree with that or not, just that I see where they're coming from.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 5, 2008)

> That said, I don't think Clark would have a problem with RoLW, which is almost 100% OD&D flavored. Perhaps he has more of a beef with the "kiddie" (as in, it was made, specifically, for children) anime like DBZ and Naruto with "WOW K3WL POWERZ!!11!one!1!eleven!" I sometimes game with people who are strongly influenced by this genre, and I must admit it can negatively impact the game... for me.




Well, he said it was because of "powerful abilities," which I can see. 4e has jettisoned the "mundane tier," so even 1st level PC's are several cuts above the typical townsfolk, much like how a lot of anime-style characters start off by being incredibly powerful with no one being able to challenge them.

D&D has, for a long time, had the feeling of going from dirt to going to godhood, and 4e has shouldered aside both sides of that continuum in favor of 30 levels of "better than anyone who isn't someone you're fighting, whom you will probably be on par with." Not that it was exactly a big leap to make, just that it is much more designed into the system than it was before (especially in 1e). 



> I know one girl who is a gamer, and that's one more than any female anime fans I know.




That's a shame. I know FAR MORE female anime fans than I know male anime fans. And most of those I know like to dress up in skimpy costumes and parade around for my enjoyment.

I'm gonna go thank Satan for that little pleasure RIGHT NOW!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Is this thread for real? Let me get this straight, (1) some dude on the Internet goes to his own message boards (where presumably people who like to buy his stuff hang out) and says "You know, this game some other company published is pretty cool, but it really isn't my favorite flavor. I think I can take some of its innovations and make a better game that." and (2) people here jump up and down on his head shouting "You think my taste in games suck, do you? Well you suck!"
> 
> Jeez people, chill. 4E has "good engineering" (the game works, functionally), so whether or not 4E is any "good" is clearly a subjective opinion. If Clark said he didn't like chocolate ice cream (and you did), would you get this upset? I hope not.




Yes, this thread is real.  I think the true question is - is that surprising?  There are people here who take *any* criticism of 4e, no matter how far fetched it may be to stretch it into a criticism, as a personal attack against themselves.

Like I said earlier in this thread, the *speed* at which people who were *praising Clark's name* spun around to attack him is, well, kinda hilarious.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 5, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:


> 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.




You do realize "They can - and should - be revised, altered and reinterpreted. They should be revisited and changed." is restating something Gary said many, many, many times, including in the rule books, not to mention in his forum posts.

Plus, reading from your other posts you need to re read what Clark posted with a clear mind, because you are now putting words into Clark's mouth that have nothing to do with what he meant.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 5, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Not sayin' whether I agree with that or not, just that I see where they're coming from.



I understand, also. I simply disagree. The warrior daily power "Brute Strike" is not a "K3WL POWERZ!!11!one!1!eleven!" (henceforth abbreviated to KP so I don't have to type it out anymore) in the sense that I understand it from KP anime. To that degree, I think the term "power" was... unfortunate. "Exploit" is a much better term, with fewer negative cannotations.

What I want to know is why no one ever had a problem with this mechanic when it was used for 3.5E barbarians (rage), paladins (smite), samurai (kiai smite), bards (inspire), etc. There is nothing new about these mechanics. I gotta stess that: *there is nothing new about powers*. You always had them (unless you were a fighter).


----------



## cougent (Oct 6, 2008)

Let me offer something new to the discussion, I am one of those who has NOT played 4E, yet.  I read through the PH and as I said earlier I did not have a negative (or hater) response to it, but it did not grab me (or make me fall in love either).  A friend asked me if I would play if he started a group and I said yes, but so far that has not happened.  Neither have I gone searching for a 4E group because of my initial reaction.

I understand what Clark is talking about because that was my initial reaction to 3E as well.  It sort of seemed like D&D, but not.  After some adjusting of the core mechanics for 3E, I became very comfortable with the game and truly considered it "Real D&D", but with new things in it that were not in AD&D.  I had some of my old players that I had DM'ed 10 years earlier tell me that I ran 3E in a 1E fashion, and I agreed with them.  I warned potential new players that my style was very different and unconventional, and most of them (younger who had never played AD&D) found it very interesting and fun... different, but fun.  A few did not and we mutually agreed they would do better in other more conventional 3E games, and we parted amicably.

So when I hear Clark say that he wants to "1E-ize 4E" [my term] then my response is WAHOO!  I don't see how that in any way (should) threaten anyone who is currently playing and loving 4E.  I mean we are talking about expanding the pie, not carving it up even smaller.  Notice above I said I have "read" the PH, not bought.  If Clark writes something that brings me into his version of "Real D&D 4E" then I will buy the core books even though I plan on altering them.  However if he (or others) do not write something that gives me the personal "wow, I gotta have this" factor then I will not be buying anything 4E related.  I apologize to the hard working writers at WotC who spent a great deal of effort on the product, but it just did not wow me, and there are alternatives out there that do.

In regards to the "soul" of D&D, or "doing it right" I think everyone should just take that with a grain of salt.  I have never met another DM yet who did it exactly the same way I do... and yet the silly fools think they are ALL "doing it right".   If they would just bother to ask, I could assure them they are all doing it wrong, because only I do it right!


----------



## scruffygrognard (Oct 6, 2008)

cougent said:


> So when I hear Clark say that he wants to "1E-ize 4E" [my term] then my response is WAHOO!  I don't see how that in any way (should) threaten anyone who is currently playing and loving 4E.  I mean we are talking about expanding the pie, not carving it up even smaller.  Notice above I said I have "read" the PH, not bought.  If Clark writes something that brings me into his version of "Real D&D 4E" then I will buy the core books even though I plan on altering them.  However if he (or others) do not write something that gives me the personal "wow, I gotta have this" factor then I will not be buying anything 4E related.  I apologize to the hard working writers at WotC who spent a great deal of effort on the product, but it just did not wow me, and there are alternatives out there that do.




That's EXACTLY where I stand.  I've read the PHB and played a few sample games but have zero interest in buying 4th edition books.  
WotC would benefit (as far as I'm involved) if Clark came up with something that somehow made 4th edition "feel" like D&D to me.  I have money that wants to burn a hole in my pocket but nowhere to go (_Pathfinder _isn't tickling my fancy and I have almost every _AD&D_, 3rd edition _D&D_ and _Castles and Crusades_ book that I need to run a game).


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 6, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Is this thread for real? Let me get this straight, (1) some dude on the Internet goes to his own message boards (where presumably people who like to buy his stuff hang out) and says "You know, this game some other company published is pretty cool, but it really isn't my favorite flavor. I think I can take some of its innovations and make a better game that."




If he had actually said it that way none of this would be happening. I guess its not the message but the way he expressed it, that irked people.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 6, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Like I said earlier in this thread, the *speed* at which people who were *praising Clark's name* spun around to attack him is, well, kinda hilarious.



Some might say the same about how quickly Orcus' tune has apparently changed on 4E.

Who knows, maybe there's a connection there?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 6, 2008)

Halivar said:


> I understand, also. I simply disagree. The warrior daily power "Brute Strike" is not a "K3WL POWERZ!!11!one!1!eleven!"



Indeed. Causing extra damage than normal on an attack certainly doesn't qualify as a KP. Otherwise Power Attack from 3E would have to be a KP.


----------



## Allister (Oct 6, 2008)

Halivar said:


> What I want to know is why no one ever had a problem with this mechanic when it was used for 3.5E barbarians (rage), paladins (smite), samurai (kiai smite), bards (inspire), etc. There is nothing new about these mechanics. I gotta stess that: *there is nothing new about powers*. You always had them (unless you were a fighter).




*LOL*

As the saying goes, "You're a fighter. You don't deserve nice things"

EDIT: Actually, I think I personally was more annoyed NOT at the 4E discussion but the usual disparaging remark about anime....


----------



## Fenes (Oct 6, 2008)

Halivar said:


> I understand, also. I simply disagree. The warrior daily power "Brute Strike" is not a "K3WL POWERZ!!11!one!1!eleven!" (henceforth abbreviated to KP so I don't have to type it out anymore) in the sense that I understand it from KP anime. To that degree, I think the term "power" was... unfortunate. "Exploit" is a much better term, with fewer negative cannotations.
> 
> What I want to know is why no one ever had a problem with this mechanic when it was used for 3.5E barbarians (rage), paladins (smite), samurai (kiai smite), bards (inspire), etc. There is nothing new about these mechanics. I gotta stess that: *there is nothing new about powers*. You always had them (unless you were a fighter).




"Exploit" has a rather negative cannotation in the computer gameing scene.

I don't have a problem with fighters having powers - I run Bot9S, and all the PCs are melee fighters, and have been since oh, 2001 - I have a problem with fighter powers being treated like spell slots. I consider the various recharge mechanisms of Bot9S far superiour to the "once per day/encounter" method.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 6, 2008)

Clark I'm psyched for your rules variant!  3.x was barely for me, and 4e was definitely not D&D to me, too many sacred cows slaughtered, so I'd like to see what you can do.

Why is everyone so worried about other people's opinion on how they play?


----------



## Orcus (Oct 6, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Some might say the same about how quickly Orcus' tune has apparently changed on 4E.




Here's the thing, my tune hasnt changed. Its just how people are interpreting my tune.

I support 4E. I play 4E. I support advancements to the game. I support growth and development of the game. I happen to feel the soul of D&D was captured in AD&D, but I dont want to play AD&D. I like the new advancements. Kinda like old cars. I love the look of an old corvette, but I want the modern engine and modern steerings and electronics and systems. 

But, though I support 4E and am a big cheerleader for it, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that I must accept whatever is included in 4E as perfect and the ultimate expression of the game. 

The fact that there are things I want to change does not mean that I "dont support 4E" or I've "changed my tune" or I'm a "hater" or "anti-4E" or "criticizing 4E." I'm not doing those things. I am, instead, engaging in the very advancement and development that I support--the betterment of the game. And I am not saying how you play is bad and how I play is good. I am just saying that I see some changes to 4E that I can make that would make the game better for me and more the way I want it. That may work for you, it may not. And I am not presuming to know. 

4E did alot right. But it did some things wrong, in my view (YMMV).

It seems one of my biggest problems here was my "anime" comment, and for that I appologize. It was poorly said and made me sound crusty and out of touch, as many have commented. Those are fair observations. "You kids today, get off my lawn!"  

What I was objecting to and wanting to change was the 1st level power creep issue that I dont like. And I used the ranger "split the tree" power as an example. I shouldnt have called it what I called it. But they were my words and I am a big enough boy to take the blame for saying something stupid (which I did).

That said, the "split the tree" power is what I am talking about. Shure, mechanically it may be similar to Rapid Shot, but I hope that people can see the difference in feel and flavor of being able at 1st level to fire two arrows from your bow at once at two different targets  

In any event, I have not done a turn around or a change of position. My position is the same. I am a huge cheerleader for 4E. I love it. I love the advancement of the game. I dont want to go backwards. But that said I think there are some things that I want to change to make it "done right" for me (and I am not presuming to speak for you, you can either agree or disagree and I expect you would). 

Clark


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Oct 6, 2008)

Biggus Clarkus -

I'm a 4e cheerleader too. I love it too.  And here's one guy who sees no problem with anyone - _anyone_ - trying to improve it or tweak it in any way they deem fit.

And since I'm a born and bred 1e guy, I'm very interested to see what you do with it.

The engine is there. It's the best engine we've ever had in D&D. I'd love to see someone build a 1e-style car around it.

WP


----------



## Orcus (Oct 6, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> If he had actually said it that way none of this would be happening. I guess its not the message but the way he expressed it, that irked people.




I probably should have done just that.  My bad... But that would require me to be alot smarter than I acually am.  

Clark


----------



## Mercule (Oct 6, 2008)

Eh.  I like 4e.  It looks like I'm going to enjoy it a whole lot more than I did 3e.  That said, there are some flavor (and mechanical) issues with it because *gasp* no game is perfect.  I'd rather have balance defined as "time in the spotlight" or "over-all coolness and potential for remenising" than "hit points of damage in combat".

Clark, if you finish your idle hands project and it does those things, I am *sooo....* buying it.  Flavor is a fickle thing.  I think the 4e system is pretty darn good, but I also think the flavor you're talking about is what I want out of a game.


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 6, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I probably should have done just that.  My bad... But that would require me to be alot smarter than I acually am.
> 
> Clark




And we as a community a lot more understanding. 

But we all have our faults. 




Orcus said:


> That said, the "split the tree" power is what I am talking about. Shure, mechanically it may be similar to Rapid Shot, but I hope that people can see the difference in feel and flavor of being able at 1st level to fire two arrows from your bow at once at two different targets




Just a quick question what is so wrong with this?

Didn't bows in AD&D used to have a rate of fire 2/1?

If its the notion of the arrows actually curving and hitting 2 opposite targets, well that's just fluff and you can ignore fluff.


----------



## Imp (Oct 6, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Just a quick question what is so wrong with this?
> 
> Didn't bows in AD&D used to have a rate of fire 2/1?



Well, AD&D rounds lasted a full minute.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 6, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Just a quick question what is so wrong with this?
> 
> Didn't bows in AD&D used to have a rate of fire 2/1?
> 
> If its the notion of the arrows actually curving and hitting 2 opposite targets, well that's just fluff and you can ignore fluff.




You are right. I COULD just close my eyes and say "its just like shooting twice, its just like shooting twice, dont let it bother you." But in a way it isnt. Just ignoring the fluff to me isnt he answer. I agree I could. Here is why I dont like to just ignore it:

First off, because that isnt what it is--it is in fact the ability to fire two arrows at once and have them hit different targets. That, to me, represents a greater shift to the fantastical than I like in my game. I agree, that is a personal preference. And this isnt a tenth level guy, its a first level guy. 

Second, it represents what a character can DO, and it can be used as a guide for what players can claim they also should be able to do. While this has never actually happened for me with 4E, I can tell you in my many years of DMing we have often discussed what a character should and shouldnt be able to do when they are making up stuff not specifically covered by the rules. When determining if it is something the PCs can do, we routinely compare the reqeusted effect with actual powers and abilities. "The rules say I can do X, so why in the world cant I do Y?" That type of debate happens all the time. Here you have a power that lets a firstie fire two arrows at once against different targets. That is a pretty substantial power. Granted, it is mechanically very similar to just shooting twice. But that is not what it does. That kind of power sets the bar for discussing other powers and for ajudicating other actions. 

I guess in the end my problem is that this is (to me) simply too cinematic (notice I didnt say anime) for my style of play in general and for first level PCs in particular. I am not trying to cram my way of play down your throat.  Thats just my view. I happen to think that this increase in cinematic powers was an intentional design decision and that many people love it. I also happen to think that, as a design decision, I can take that stuff out or change it or scale it back and still be perfectly supportive of 4E 

I dont want to get too bogged down in that specific example. It may not be the best one. Its just the one I happened to pick in my post, so I am sticking with it. 

Clark


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 6, 2008)

Imp said:


> Well, AD&D rounds lasted a full minute.



Also, don't forget that AD&D allows a _triple rate of fire_ for ready missile weapons during surprise (DMG pg 62)*.  Bows + surprise rock in AD&D.


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 6, 2008)

Orcus said:


> SNIP
> Clark






Okay , if instead of the actual PHB, we were to just cut away all the fluff description to all the abilities and those were replace with really mundane descriptions would that had made it more palatable for you?

For example: 

Split the Tree 
You fire two arrows at once, which separate in mid-flight to strike
two different targets.

Split the Tree 
You prepare 2 arrows and fire them one after the other at two different targets.

PS slightly related lookup any youtube video of Randy Oitker.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 6, 2008)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Also, don't forget that AD&D allows a _triple rate of fire_ for ready missile weapons during each segment of surprise (DMG pg 62).  So if you had your bow ready and you got the drop on your enemies, you could have *six* arrows in the air if they were surprised for 1 segment, and *twelve* arrows in the air if they were surprised for two segments.  Bows + surprise rock in AD&D.



That rule is, almost universally, considered to be broken. Gary disavowed it and I don't know many people that actually use it...


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 6, 2008)

*After reading what Orcus posted on the Necro boards, but not all of this thread...*

As much as I have, in the past, enjoyed crying out:

*"3.75"*

In all honesty I probably wouldn't use and am less likely to buy it. 

4E with 1E style, and some supporting mechanics, is definately something I am looking for. I did buy the _Advanced Players Guide_, and am glad I did. That seems to be what Orcus is _promising_, as he has for several months. I look forward to him delivering on that. And I am _pretty_ sure he will.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 6, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> That rule is, almost universally, considered to be broken. Gary disavowed it and I don't know many people that actually use it...



Whoops, you quoted me before my edit.  Yeah, I agree (I don't use the rule that way, either).  I thought this thread on DF has some decent alternative interpretations or house rules (I especially like Matthew's).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 6, 2008)

Clark - 

The sad fact is, regardless of how well worded you made your statement, there would have still been people here who would've gotten upset enough to attack you for it.  There is, depressingly enough, a group of people on these forums that takes any joke about 4e, or event he thought that 4e could be improved, as a personal insult.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 6, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> PS slightly related lookup any youtube video of Randy Oitker.




Whoa. 5 at once?! That's insane. 

I used to think split the tree was a lame power, but I've been made a believer.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 6, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Whoa. 5 at once?! That's insane.
> 
> I used to think split the tree was a lame power, but I've been made a believer.




Yeah, but that is a talent so rare it can only be found on YouTube. Does it make sense that *every *1st level Ranger could do that? C'mon now. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that's a high-level Feat from a 3PP. And it's broken.


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 6, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Clark -
> 
> The sad fact is, regardless of how well worded you made your statement, there would have still been people here who would've gotten upset enough to attack you for it.  There is, depressingly enough, a group of people on these forums that takes any joke about 4e, or event he thought that 4e could be improved, as a personal insult.




I completely disagree. Like I stated earlier and Clark himself has stated, his choice of words were not the most appropiate and they were interpreted as mostly anti 4E propaganda. This coming from someone who has championed 4E since it was announced prompted the earlier posts here,and in RPGnet.

There is not a group of people here or anywhere else that "takes any joke about 4e as a personal insult" anymore than there is a group of people that "Actively trolls 4E posts to threadcrap and defame 4E". 

Even suggesting that, is just 'crazy talk'.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 6, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I guess in the end my problem is that this is (to me) simply too cinematic (notice I didnt say anime) for my style of play in general and for first level PCs in particular.




I have to admit, a lot of people in my group still can't get over the crazy abilities of the characters. It doesn't ruin the game for them, but I can see where you are coming from.

So where is the point where this becomes acceptable to you? I have no clue what you are planning on doing, but if you tuned the power curve and just added lower level abilities so that the characters were more mundane at lower levels, would split the tree be a 10th level power? A 20th level power?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 7, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Yeah, but that is a talent so rare it can only be found on YouTube. Does it make sense that *every *1st level Ranger could do that? C'mon now.



Yes, it makes sense. By the time a Ranger is first level, he is already a proficient archer. There is no reason that 1st level  has to be the level of ignorant, talentless commoners.

After all, by the time a person hits Paragon levels, let alone Epic levels, we are talking about feats that should be impossible for people in the real world, even for crazy things you see on YouTube. This is fantasy we are talking about, after all, and it needs to cover Hercules, Rama, and Gilgamesh just as well as it covers Robin Hood.

Anyways, getting back to the original topic...

I really don't care how much Mr. Peterson admits that his wording was a poor choice. _Anyone_ who uses the term "cheesy anime crap" loses me as a potential customer. If you think "cheesy anime crap" is even a valid phrasing for something, than you are so far out of touch with my preferences and interests that I don't need to bother looking at your products in any more detail.

Honestly, I would be much more interested in "4E D&D that is more like a good anime" than "4E D&D that is more like 1E". One of my complaints about 4E is that the game is almost schizophrenic with the way it both lets people do cool things, yet at the same time puts overly "realistic" limits on what is possible (like with the Athletics skill). The game would be more fun if those limits were much more loose.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Oct 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Clark -
> 
> The sad fact is, regardless of how well worded you made your statement, there would have still been people here who would've gotten upset enough to attack you for it.  There is, depressingly enough, a group of people on these forums that takes any joke about 4e, or event he thought that 4e could be improved, as a personal insult.




We have a winner.

Cirno...enough already.  Your post before the one I just quoted begins with 
"Like I said already...", and yet you proceed to repeat yourself.  And then repeat yourself. Again.  

Yada, yada, yada...blah blah blah...we get it. Really, we do. You are upset that some people were angry when they thought Clark was anti-4e. 

He's not. 

They were wrong. 

You have always possessed punctilious courtesy on the boards.

End of story. 

Move on.

To distill it even further:

(1) The man admittedly loves 4e.
(2) The man wants to make 4e _better_.
(3) Most agree with (1) and are perfectly fine with someone trying (2).
(4) Everyone wins.

Good night. 

WP


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 7, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> We have a winner.
> 
> Cirno...enough already.  Your post before the one I just quoted begins with
> "Like I said already...", and yet you proceed to repeat yourself.  And then repeat yourself. Again.
> ...




You sir, you should change your ENworld handle to Wisdom bonus.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 7, 2008)

XP to WP. Hell, XP all around!


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 7, 2008)

Filcher said:


> XP to WP. Hell, XP all around!




I'll take my XP in the form of 1 ounce (troy) gold coins, .999 fine.  Thanks!


----------



## Henry (Oct 7, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> _Anyone_ who uses the term "cheesy anime crap" loses me as a potential customer.
> 
> (SNIP)
> 
> Honestly, I would be much more interested in "4E D&D that is more like a good anime" than "4E D&D that is more like 1E".




I think you answered your first point with your second. Clark's audience isn't the gamer who wants D&D to be extremely "over the top." This is a guy who was so successful from 2000 to 2006 (at the least) that he bucked the entire trend of "modules don't sell," because he knew his audience, found 'em, and catered to them.

He's also the guy who's fought perhaps harder than anyone save Scott Rouse in my opinion to keep D&D accessible to the hobby game community, and keep alive the level of choice that Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison started. It's great to cater to one type of gamer, but I definitely preferred the level of D&D (though the OGL) from about 2000 to 2006 that catered to MOST types of gamer.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 7, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> Yes, it makes sense. By the time a Ranger is first level, he is already a proficient archer. There is no reason that 1st level  has to be the level of ignorant, talentless commoners.
> 
> After all, by the time a person hits Paragon levels, let alone Epic levels, we are talking about feats that should be impossible for people in the real world, even for crazy things you see on YouTube. This is fantasy we are talking about, after all, and it needs to cover Hercules, Rama, and Gilgamesh just as well as it covers Robin Hood.
> 
> ...




On the other hand his comments about cheesy anime crap got me interested in his project.  So he lost you as a customer and gained me as a possible customer after I had pretty much sworn off anything 4e related.  He can't cater to every gamer.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 7, 2008)

I have been a big fan of Necromancer for a while now. Necro, Goodmen, and a few others have been a great throw back to 1e...

I also LOVE 4e...anime and all.

I think Clark saying "Anime crap" was about right for his way of thinking. I would probly  not be into his stuff. I like 1e fel, 2e feel, 3efeel, and 4e feel. I want to have rules to support of of them. I also (No offence ment) think clark is a step back, not a step forward. I think WotC is the next wave.

I hope to god that all of those steps back are there but that there is still forward motion.

      Clark: You go on doing what you do, and saying what you think. You shouldn't have to be held to a higherr standard then anyone else on these or your own board...


----------



## Halivar (Oct 7, 2008)

Meh. I just pretend that when he says, "anime crap," he really means "crappy anime," and his only desire is to keep people from making characters from _Slayers_ or _Hand-Maid May_, which I consider a noble endeavor.

</sort-of-sarcasm-because-im-sick-of-my-gaming-group-doing-exactly-this>


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 7, 2008)

OK, this is more for those that have written D&D products and are posting here. (Namely Orcus, Darrin ... and maybe cperkins (though I am not sure whether this is the one that wrote for Wizards)).

I play and mostly DM 4E. Have done every edition. Pretty much feel each has been an improvement.

I too question the abilities of the characters (esp at low levels). I have often had a gritty DM style, but the players seem to love it. I have several issues (as does Orcus, but still love the game, as does Orcus).

What I really want a response on is: "From the DM's perspective, isn't 4E more like 1E than ever before"?

I have found it so. 1E & 2E adventures translate much easier into 4E than 3E. Creature design and more 'free-calls' on the DM's part certainly add to that feeling to me.

Your thoughts?

BTW: Sorry to see such a good writer in Darrin turn away from the game. I liked a lot of his work, esp Exalted Deeds


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 7, 2008)

Halivar said:


> Meh. I just pretend that when he says, "anime crap," he really means "crappy anime," and his only desire is to keep people from making characters from _Slayers_ or _Hand-Maid May_, which I consider a noble endeavor.
> 
> </sort-of-sarcasm-because-im-sick-of-my-gaming-group-doing-exactly-this>




I think the anime fans around here can be a bit thin-skinned. There are some anime films that I like. But it would be disingenous to deny that there are a gazillion anime films in which people jump 40 feet in the air, throw a hundred attacks in two seconds, demolish entire buildings with one attack, dodge and fly around like they're in a wire-fu movie, produce giant mallets out of thin air (and put them back...), punch through walls and generally perpetrate deeds of outrageous over-the-top action. In fact, the anime films in which _none_ of the above happen are probably in the minority.

That doesn't mean they're not out there, or that they're not good by association, or that there's anything wrong with an indulgence in mindless action in your viewing tastes, etc. But people associate anime with ridiculomegamondoultrahuge-o action the way they associate westerns with gun fights and love stories with kissing. Sure, there are anime films that don't have that, but there are so many that do that you can hardly get too offended by the association.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 7, 2008)

Even if powerful stuff happens in anime, using the term as an equivalent to "i don´t like this overpowered childish stuff" is insulting. Let´s be honest: It´s like using "D&D players " as an equivalent to "nerd who lives in his parent´s garage."


----------



## Fenes (Oct 7, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> We have a winner.
> 
> Cirno...enough already.  Your post before the one I just quoted begins with
> "Like I said already...", and yet you proceed to repeat yourself.  And then repeat yourself. Again.
> ...




It's not the prof who needs to move on, it's the people he spoke of, jumping on every (imagined) critic of 4E (and 3E) who need to move on, and finally accept that not everyone likes the same things they like.


----------



## Fenes (Oct 7, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Even if powerful stuff happens in anime, using the term as an equivalent to "i don´t like this overpowered childish stuff" is insulting. Let´s be honest: It´s like using "D&D players " as an equivalent to "nerd who lives in his parent´s garage."




As was mentioned, "Record of Loddoss Wars" is anime, and still the best movie/TV series about D&D ever made.

People just need to finally understand that anime is a medium, like comics or movies, not a distinct style. (And all they need is to replace "anime" with "(fill in the one example of an anime movie/series you see as negative)".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 7, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> We have a winner.
> 
> Cirno...enough already.  Your post before the one I just quoted begins with
> "Like I said already...", and yet you proceed to repeat yourself.  And then repeat yourself. Again.
> ...




And yet, despite you saying that, even now, in this very thread, people are still throwing temper tantrums that Clark has the _audacity_ to claim he can improve 4e in ways they dislike.

So uh...well, there goes that, I suppose.


----------



## Kishin (Oct 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Clark -
> 
> The sad fact is, regardless of how well worded you made your statement, there would have still been people here who would've gotten upset enough to attack you for it.  There is, depressingly enough, a group of people on these forums that takes any joke about 4e, or event he thought that 4e could be improved, as a personal insult.




I seriously think the only person who takes these things quite so personally is you, given your posting habits.

[/quote=Orcus]
You are right. I COULD just close my eyes and say "its just like shooting twice, its just like shooting twice, dont let it bother you." But in a way it isnt. Just ignoring the fluff to me isnt he answer. I agree I could. Here is why I dont like to just ignore it:

First off, because that isnt what it is--it is in fact the ability to fire two arrows at once and have them hit different targets. That, to me, represents a greater shift to the fantastical than I like in my game. I agree, that is a personal preference. And this isnt a tenth level guy, its a first level guy.[/quote]

But the fluff is what marks it as 'the ability to fire two arrows at once'. D&D round are not one instantaneous moment.

Still, they say write what you know, and if that's not the game reality you know Clark, then you've got to do your things your way. Yeah, I'm a little confused to see the 180, but you can't make someone be disengenuous in their creative output. Well, you can, but usually it involves large amounts of money and members of the opposite sex, neither of which are generally showered on third party RPG publishers, however deserving they may be. 




			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Also, don't forget that AD&D allows a _triple rate of fire_ for ready missile weapons during surprise (DMG pg 62)*.  Bows + surprise rock in AD&D.




The reality of this actually resulted in the only PC death I have witnessed wherein the PC did not even have a chance to introduce himself to the party properly. He has achieved legendary red shirt status.

He was a replacement for that player's other recently deceased PC too....Kid has no luck...

In our defense, we were young and foolish.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 7, 2008)

Kishin said:


> I seriously think the only person who takes these things quite so personally is you, given your posting habits.




You kidding?  I find this _hilarious.  _Just take it easy, man.  Yukkuri shiteitte ne! and all that nonesense.


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It's not the prof who needs to move on, it's the people he spoke of, jumping on every (imagined) critic of 4E (and 3E) who need to move on, and finally accept that not everyone likes the same things they like.




But the problem here is not that 4E needs changing or imrpovement( every RPG needs improvement , that is what house rules are for), but his choice of words. 

We all know everybody likes different things, but because we like different things we can't  go slamming another person for his  likes or dislikes.

It's like saying:

Fenes likes Mecha.->I think Mecha is cheezy crap.->Fenes likes cheezy crap.

Get it now?


I wonder how different would it had been if he had said "Cheezy Tolkien crap" or "making 4E right by giving it its true soul with more Anime cinematic action".


----------



## Fenes (Oct 7, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> But the problem here is not that 4E needs changing or imrpovement( every RPG needs improvement , that is what house rules are for), but his choice of words.
> 
> We all know everybody likes different things, but because we like different things we can't  go slamming another person for his  likes or dislikes.
> 
> ...




The problem is that for a number of vocal posters, whatever criticism you post in whatever manner with regards to 3E or 4E is understood as "it's crap, and if you like it you are crap too".


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The problem is that for a number of vocal posters, whatever criticism you post in whatever manner with regards to 3E or 4E is understood as "it's crap, and if you like it you are crap too".




No.

The problem was that Clark posted:



> Originally Posted by clark
> Changing *a miniature game back into a roleplaying game*. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. *Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E*. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul.



(emphasis mine)


Clark has admitted his error and has publicly apologized in various occassions(Kudos to you Mr. Clark), how can you still be claiming otherwise?

Have you not been reading this thread? Or are you now talking about other threads?


----------



## Fenes (Oct 7, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Have you not been reading this thread? Or are you now talking about other threads?




Other threads, the whole forum.


----------



## cangrejoide (Oct 7, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Other threads, the whole forum.




Got any links?


----------



## Fenes (Oct 7, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> Got any links?




Did you read this thread? Did you read the forum? You can't post any critic of any system currently without some self-styled defenders trying to teach you how to "play it right".


----------



## Henry (Oct 7, 2008)

I have a solution:

I close this thread and get everybody to chill out for a while. All I'm seeing on the past two pages is people dickering back and forth about How Clark said what he said, and not What he said; to boot, people are getting increasingly argumentative, and it's only a few posts away from people calling one another "elitists" and "munchkin kids."

Let's let this cool down a few days before someone decides to open it up again.


----------

