# Was 4e design based around the suite of proposed D&Di tools? EDIT: found quote.



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2009)

I made a claim in a thread on gleemax that someone from WotC had said they designed 4e with the suite of online tools in mind...i.e. they knew that the online tools would have limitations and a particular focus, and they designed the system with attention to excluding those limitations and addressing that focus.

(For example, heavy use of a battlegrid, and nerfing certain three dimensional powers like flight that would not work well on a virtual tabletop).

I could have sworn that I read this (likely back in 2007/2008) somewhere (either on a message board at gleemax or enworld, or a blog) or heard it (on a podcast or GamerZero youtube).


I can't find it anywhere. So if anyone else remembers this and can post a link, that would be great! 

If not, I'll have to assume I'm misremembering and that this was not the case... and go back to gleemax and retract my statement.

Thanks for helping/discussion!


EDIT, scroll down to post # 18 for the quote that I FINALLY came across.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 28, 2009)

I was pretty hardcore in my reading of everything related to 4E before it came out and I don't remember anything like that... Methinks you are accidentally talking bolleaux, I am afraid 

I think that doesn't make sense either, games designers (like most non-experts) are pretty crap at making something so it fits in the useful parameters of software creation. And vice versa for programmers and RPG design! A lot of my mates are programmers (geeeeks!) and that is a big frustration for them.


----------



## Ktulu (May 28, 2009)

Yeah, I spent too much time reading all the articles, interviews, and preview material and never saw this..

However, I think the DDi tools have defintely been designed with 4e in mind


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2009)

Durn it. I hate eating my words. 

Well, I'll hold off for a few more hours to see if anyone else has seen this and can post a link, but it's not looking good for me.


----------



## davethegame (May 28, 2009)

Take a read through the two preview books that were released. While they mention that a digital portion was a piece of the overall strategy, the game design wasn't tied in at all, and all of those things that you mention have other explanations in the design philosophy.


----------



## Rechan (May 28, 2009)

Total cart before the horse, there.

Besides, if that were the case, their online suite would be way better than it is now.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2009)

Thanks to all for the responses. (Also thanks for not flaming me!)

I'll go retract my (now apparently false) statement.


Still, if anyone finds evidence that I was actually correct, please post a link, and I'll get to retract my retraction!


----------



## Ktulu (May 28, 2009)

No prob, Aberznezerzny.  You asked an honest question without being insulting or coming off as looking to bait for an edition war... Which, technically, means we're supposed to assault you with no quarter...  I think we'll let it slide


----------



## tmatk (May 29, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Thanks to all for the responses. *(Also thanks for not flaming me!)*
> 
> ...




This isn't gleemax


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 29, 2009)

It's weird, but I remember something similar to this.

Not that they were designing it for the suite of tools they had in mind, but that they were designing it knowing that digital play would be an element.

I don't remember anything specific about it, just that it was mentioned that they knew D&D was going to have a digital leg in 4e going into the designing process.

That's not to say that they limited themselves to what would work in the digital context, but that might say that they knew that 4e would receive a digital translation.

Certainly, they knew what the DDI was going to try and accomplish, and they probably kept those attempts in mind as they developed the game, but I'm pretty sure they didn't use it as a limiting factor.

I assumed "giving DMs control" and "lack of imagination" and "a real love of minis combat on the dev team" was more what factored into a lot of the more...easily digitized 4e elements such as limiting flight and one-count diagonals and squares as the default for ranges and such like as.


----------



## Glyfair (May 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Not that they were designing it for the suite of tools they had in mind, but that they were designing it knowing that digital play would be an element.



At least that digital tools would be an element (not necessarily for digital play).  Also, it would have been silly to do otherwise.

That was one of the big problems with 3.x (and earlier editions, but 3.x was the during the largest electronic tools boom).  Someone would have a strong character generator, and then someone would make new features that went against core things the character generators assumed.  They would have to rework the character generator's programming in extensive ways.  After they fixed that, someone would come up with something else that required reprogramming.


----------



## tmatk (May 29, 2009)

Maybe you were rememebering this? - http://games.slashdot.org/story/08/...er-Answers-Your-Questions-on-Camera?art_pos=4

In the 2nd video, the designer talks about knowing 4e would be translated to other platforms, including video games.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 29, 2009)

While that adds credence to my thoughts, I have to honestly admit that I've never seen that before.

I could have sworn I read that 4e was designed around the limitations of the (eventual) gametable and other dm package options, but I'm thinking more and more that it was a false memory (like when eyewitnesses identify a random person at 100% sureness, who was verifiably multiple states away with an ironclad alibi).


What I was thinking of was a post that specifically said (maybe by Mike Mearls or Scott Rouse or somesuch) that 4e was designed so that it could be played on an online tabletop generator. 

I don't think that exists, given my searches over today and the posts above. If someone finds it, then I'll be grateful, in that my memory will have fewer holes than it currently appears to.

BUT, at the presnt time, I don't think that it exists. I think I was wrong, despite the fact that I really could have sworn that it really did exist. I don't think it was expunged if it did...either it is still out there, or it probably was never said (and my mind was playing tricks on me).


Ah well, thanks for your efforts! It just wasn't that. Though, again, good point. Maybe my memories were constructed out of a "feeling" or "impression" based upon a variety of things said. False memories usualy do come from somewhere, though that somewhere could have equally, and just as easily, have been my own wishful/or projected thinking.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 29, 2009)

What I remember reading was that the rules were designed to be put into a database and to be easily codified.  I don't think that translates specifically into the DDI, but it does translate into "online tools" and an "online database", which is close enough in my book.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 29, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> What I remember reading was that the rules were designed to be put into a database and to be easily codified.  I don't think that translates specifically into the DDI, but it does translate into "online tools" and an "online database", which is close enough in my book.




I am not sure what came first, though. I tend to assume they created rules and then found a database model that fit the rules. 

I am just guessing, but it seems as if the character builder for example can calculate the attack values for your power by identifying the keywords contained in the power description. So, if the Attack line says. "Strength" he recognizes "Strength" and determines what value this means.
But the power format apparently doesn't contain a field that is specifically treated as "enter relevant ability score here, select your choice from this combo box of 6 possible ability scores."

I remember this because there was a typo in one power description and the builder didn't calculate it. Also, the XML format also specifies alternate names for ability scores (Strength, Str, str or some such).

That overall seems to suggest they started with their power descriptions and then build the database to contain it, mostly based on entering the texts they already had written.


----------



## jasin (May 29, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> I think that doesn't make sense either, games designers (like most non-experts) are pretty crap at making something so it fits in the useful parameters of software creation. And vice versa for programmers and RPG design!



That explains a lot about the whole 4E-DDI relationship, actually.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (May 29, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I made a claim in a thread on gleemax that someone from WotC had said they designed 4e with the suite of online tools in mind...i.e. they knew that the online tools would have limitations and a particular focus, and they designed the system with attention to excluding those limitations and addressing that focus.
> 
> (For example, heavy use of a battlegrid, and nerfing certain three dimensional powers like flight that would not work well on a virtual tabletop).




Working with free placement/distances instead of a grid or handling three dimensional stuff isn't that hard to implement. And, once implemented, the software wouldn't have any problem using such a system for any need which might arise. Visualisation in the virtual tabletop would be more of a problem, but even Elite on the C64 in the eighties did manage this. 

And it would be a great reason to use the VTT, because doing it by hand, on your dinner table would be much more complicated.

What would be the design goals applied to the construction of the system? 

To build a coherent system? Good for tabletop and computer.

To build a system you can easily add new elements to without it breaking down? Good for tabletop and computer.

Minimising the need for calculations when a rule has to be applied? Good for tabletop and computer.

I think (technical) design goals for a new system are pretty much the same for tabletop and VTT. Only when the system matures and is added to will it become important whether the designers let themselves be constrained by the design principles (Good for tabletop and computer) or design new systems which break with the design rules (bad for computer, may be good for tabletop).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 15, 2009)

*Found the quote (sorry for the thread necromancy).*

For those curious, I finally found that quote (and now no longer feel so confused and befuddled). 

Here is what I was talking about:

*Why 4th Edition? by DrMrLordX: 
*3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically. Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

*Wizards of the Coast: 
*The design team had play-tested Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 extensively and it was clear that the game needed to evolve. Since there were things we wanted to do digitally, like the Digital Game Table and the Character builder, it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, *with rules that would support our online applications.* There were so many system improvements that the team really felt that the time had come to revamp the game. I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75. http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/1459259

from here: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/1459259


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 15, 2009)

Flight's kinda of a bad example to use to show how 4e was designed for VTT.

Flight in the EPIC Tier is pretty much a sure thing at the epic tier...not only do you get things like Overland flight by then but in combat, pretty much every pc and monster can deal with flight (either ranged attacks and/or flight themselves).


Flight is practically absent from Heroic tier since it is believed by the designers that neither the PCs or the monsters should be using flight that often 

Prime example being the Tarrasque. In previous editions, if you could fly, even though the tarrasque was considered an epic level threat, by the time you got to face him, flight was a common feature for at least anybody that wanted it and the tarrasque wasn't that fearful. Thus, the introduction of the 4e tarrasque that "brings the battle to the ground"

Heroic : Flight relatively absent or at the most, only good for short bursts in combat

Paragon: Flight more common but only in the form of summons and mounts. Flight can last for the whole encounter now...

Epic: You want to fly whole day? No problem, find either an epic destiny, power or item and you got it.

Keep in mind, this isn't really a change from 3e or previous editions. It's one of the reasons why the LA system was considered flawed. Flying PCs always had at least a LA+1 adjustment which didn't work either at the low ends (many monsters at CR 2 and 3 can't deal with flight unless the DM remembers it) and at the high end it made no sense (by 20th level, everyone in the party should be able to fly at the least in combat encounters)

re: Designing 4e with DDI in mind...

Probably along the same lines as MTG is designed with MTGOnline in mind. Not really thought about until the card hits the final stage (makes the designers of MTGonline pull their hair out whenever a new mechanic comes out though...)


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 15, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> * by DrMrLordX:*




Papa?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 15, 2009)

You are right, of course...flight is a poor example.


I was mostly making a point to someone in that original thread, and I didn't have the info to back it up. 


I guess the point is, though, that it's weird that they built the 4e system to work with the online suite of tools, but that the tools don't all exist. In fact, they stated that the real impetus behind producing a new system at all was a combo of releasing it along with the online tools and improving on things they didn't like in 3e.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 15, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> For those curious, I finally found that quote (and now no longer feel so confused and befuddled).
> 
> Here is what I was talking about:
> 
> ...




It seems to me you are reading more into that quote than is actually intended.  There were hundreds of reasons given here and there for 4e, and that is just one of the reasons.  

Given they still don't even have much of the digital component of the system, and had no way of knowing what that digital component would some day be able to accomplish, it's hard to claim that the rules were written with the restrictions of an online component in mind.

Let's take your flying example.  First, there are plenty of flying creatures in 4e.  Second, software can handle three dimensional representations pretty well, and they had no reason to believe the software would not be able to handle such things.  Finally, focusing on a battle mat is not necessary for software.  Indeed, in our experience with Klooge Werks during 3.0 and 3.5, we found that software can help free you from battle map concepts such as squares.  You can move exactly where you want to using software, rather than firmly in the middle of a particular square.  

So, I am just not seeing it as a major motivational factor for 4e, or a justification for any rules or lack of rules in 4e.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 15, 2009)

The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple. 

Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 15, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.
> 
> Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.




Hard to argue with this. No one in our group has DDI access and we continue to play just fine somehow.


----------



## Mark (Jun 15, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I made a claim in a thread on gleemax that someone from WotC had said they designed 4e with the suite of online tools in mind...i.e. they knew that the online tools would have limitations and a particular focus, and they designed the system with attention to excluding those limitations and addressing that focus.







Scott_Rouse said:


> The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.
> 
> Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.





I'm not following quite how the two cannot both be the case.  Are you saying, Scott, that the new rules were not designed knowing that there would be online tools and that certain considerations toward that end did not needed to be taken into consideration?  While we're on the subject, btw, was it not also a legal consideration that someone not simply be able to replicate similar and supplemental rules under the OGL, and thus some steps taking in the design of the system and use of naming conventions to avoid that possibility down the road?  Thanks in advance for your candor.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 15, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.
> 
> Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer.




The answer to the OPs question IMO could be answered in a more straightforward fashion by a designer simply stating their intent.  Gizmo's opinion about what he has or has not been able to accomplish so far in the game (and with what tools) IMO seems less relevant.  

It's possible that the set of powers in the game are designed to be a subset of powers that are playable both at the table top, and capable of being modeled by software.  The influence that software is having on the design, in this case, would not be answered by your question.



Scott_Rouse said:


> D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.




If 90% of the designers are using software for some aspect of the game (ex. encounter design) then IMO that would be relevant to the OP.  IMO it would also be useful for the designers to recognize this fact in order to minimize discrepancies between their expectations and the audience's.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 15, 2009)

In early 2006 we were discussing 4e and some prototype designs were in being kicked around. At the same time were also discussing a desire to have electronic tools that were integrated with the D&D rules/system. Things like a character builder, game table, editorial, etc were part of the early vision for D&D Insider. 

With a new edition in development and plans moving forward to develop D&D Insider it only made sense that they all work around 4e. So although they were made to work together 4e was not designed to play requiring a computer.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 15, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> In early 2006 we were discussing 4e and some prototype designs were in being kicked around. At the same time were also discussing a desire to have electronic tools that were integrated with the D&D rules/system. Things like a character builder, game table, editorial, etc were part of the early vision for D&D Insider.
> 
> With a new edition in development and plans moving forward to develop D&D Insider it only made sense that they all work around 4e. So although they were made to work together but 4e was not designed to play requiring a computer




As a 4E/D&D Insider fan playing devils advocate:

I think the question they are trying to pose is was 4E designed to avoid mechanics that wouldn't translate well to being played on the computer. Flight isn't a good example, but how about the 3.5E Silent/Minor/Major Image(AD&D's Phantasmal Force) spells? Open ended things that can do a rather undefined anything, for example.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 15, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> As a 4E/D&D Insider fan playing devils advocate:
> 
> I think the question they are trying to pose is was 4E designed to avoid mechanics that wouldn't translate well to being played on the computer. Flight isn't a good example, but how about the 3.5E Silent/Minor/Major Image(AD&D's Phantasmal Force) spells? Open ended things that can do a rather undefined anything, for example.




The simple answer is no 4e was not designed to play easier on a computer.  

I think that the premise that computer play has design constraints is somewhat flawed to begin with. How has table top play handled flight, invisibility, teleport, line of sight, concealment, on-going fire, bloodied, etc in any sort of elegant fashion? It hasn't been done well with any physical product (tokens, templates, markers, etc). Imagination is the only kluge that has made any of these rules work well. If anything I think it is easier to design mechanics to play well on a computer because you can largely ignore physical effects like gravity and playing with inanimate avatars.

As for open ended rules as mentioned above. I would suspect those were avoided in 4e because these are often the most unbalanced/broken rules.


----------



## Festivus (Jun 15, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> In early 2006 we were discussing 4e and some prototype designs were in being kicked around. At the same time were also discussing a desire to have electronic tools that were integrated with the D&D rules/system. Things like a character builder, game table, editorial, etc were part of the early vision for D&D Insider.
> 
> With a new edition in development and plans moving forward to develop D&D Insider it only made sense that they all work around 4e. So although they were made to work together 4e was not designed to play requiring a computer.




And just to point it out, as painful as it might be to you Scott, those tools weren't even available at launch nor for several months and the game ran just fine for us.  Proof that you don't need a computer to play 4E


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 15, 2009)

Festivus said:


> And just to point it out, as painful as it might be to you Scott, those tools weren't even available at launch nor for several months and the game ran just fine for us.  Proof that you don't need a computer to play 4E




Thanks! I needed my daily fix of "poke in the eye" .


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 15, 2009)

Just to play a little devil's advocate, 'cuz I'd like to get something a bit more substantial out of it...



			
				Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.
> 
> Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.




You can play the game without Martial Power or the Manual of the Planes or the Monster Manual II, too. You can play the game without 4e, without 3e, heck, without 2e, or anything past the basic red box. You could play the game dressed up in capes in a park with foam weapons. One of the big strengths of D&D has always been its versatility.

But what is considered the "full experience?" Am I only getting 3/4ths of a game if I don't have DDI? Is it like not owning the PHBII, or is it more like not owning any PHB after the first?

I mean, I agree, DDI is not required to play 4e, and thus 4e doesn't depend on DDI, but if you view D&D as "what's required to play," a lot of stuff becomes optional. _Dice_ become optional. 

A more useful view might be what is *assumed for play*. Does the DDI fit in that category? Certianly every book published by WotC fits that category, as do ancillary products like minis. Where does DDI lie on the continuum between "we're going to assume you have it" and "we're going to assume you won't have it?" Does it vary between product like, say, the Dungeon Tiles do ("we assume you have it" for Dungeon Delve, but not for much else)?

As a for instance....


			
				Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I think that the premise that computer play has design constraints is somewhat flawed to begin with. How has table top play handled flight, invisibility, teleport, line of sight, concealment, on-going fire, bloodied, etc in any sort of elegant fashion? It hasn't been done well with any physical product (tokens, templates, markers, etc). Imagination is the only kluge that has made any of these rules work well. If anything I think it is easier to design mechanics to play well on a computer because you can largely ignore physical effects like gravity and playing with inanimate avatars.




This assumes that physical tokens are ideal and that imagination-only is considered sub-optimal. If that's a 4e assumption, then I know that say, an abstract combat system is going to go against the grain, while a "streamlined conditions system" might work well with the game.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Just to play a little devil's advocate, 'cuz I'd like to get something a bit more substantial out of it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Are we talking rules or business model? 

The OP asked about rules and my answer is no the rules were not designed to work with a computer. 

You seem to be talking more about the business model. Yes the 4e business model revolves pretty closely around D&Di. D&Di is part of the 4e Dungeons & Dragons experience by design. The Revenant or any article in Dragon or Dungeon is a good example of the idea of getting extra with insider. Just like it has been with any addition, a player/DM chooses what to use and not to use. Since AD&D, it has pretty widely known all you really need to play D&D are a PHB, DMG, MM, & some dice  but if you so chose to expand your play options into supplements then you could. D&Di is just an evolution of that same notion. It is not required but sure nice to have.



> As a for instance....
> 
> 
> This assumes that physical tokens are ideal and that imagination-only is considered sub-optimal. If that's a 4e assumption, then I know that say, an abstract combat system is going to go against the grain, while a "streamlined conditions system" might work well with the game.



This is merely a position one could take (me be devils advocate). The position that it could be easier to design and represent abstract/real-world physics breaking rules on a computer than in real life/table top. 

I don't want you to think I am discounting imagination. Personally speaking, I think imagination and tokens actually work quite well together. What the token can't do, my imagination fills in the blanks, and I find this to be one of the most enjoyable aspects about playing D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 16, 2009)

Scott Rouse said:
			
		

> Are we talking rules or business model?




A bit o'both, actually. Minis, for instance, are assumed for the rules (you play on a battlemat, everything refers to squares) and for the business model (accessories!)

More on the side of rules, though, since that's the part where it'll be experienced by the player. Does the DDI affect the way monster stat blocks are presented? (easily searchable, easily sortable) How about the way the Powers system works? (use-and-discard; cooldown times, etc.) Presumably, DDI stuff is as "core" as anything else, so would future books include references and rules that are usable without the DDI? A new Assassin Paragon Path, or a race book about the Revenant?

I mean, those are kind of specific, but in general, I think the thrust of the question is: how much am I going to feel like I'm missing out if I don't have DDI? Will I feel like I'm going against the grain like I do if I don't have minis? Or will I feel like it's basically Dragon magazine, that it might be good to have, but it's an add-on, not a basic part of the game?

If the game was "designed with DDI in mind," then it implies that I'm missing out on a lot more than if "DDI is a tool to help you play D&D, not a thing you we're going to assume you need to play D&D" does.

If you catch the distinction? I dunno, it's probably a pretty subjective one, so I might be opaque as heck talking about this. 



			
				Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This is merely a position one could take (me be devils advocate). The position that it could be easier to design and represent abstract/real-world physics breaking rules on a computer than in real life/table top.
> 
> I don't want you to think I am discounting imagination. Personally speaking, I think imagination and tokens actually work quite well together. What the token can't do, my imagination fills in the blanks, and I find this to be one of the most enjoyable aspects about playing D&D.




Well, I did take your quote out of context to try and help illustrate my point. No worries, I don't think anyone who could enjoy a game of D&D would discount imagnation!


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> > A bit o'both, actually. Minis, for instance, are assumed for the rules (you play on a battlemat, everything refers to squares) and for the business model (accessories!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 16, 2009)

> By design D&D Insider content is as core as something like Martial Power. I think those streams will remain somewhat exclusive (eg revenant lives on D&Di exclusively) as they did back when Dragon & Dungeon were in paper form. RTheer will also be content that lives on both as in the case of compendium or the Character Builder. That speaks to D&Di's nature as both content and tools/game aides.




Works for me! Certainly, as a 4e DM who doesn't spend a lot of time pre-prepping, I find DDI's organizational tools to be a huge help in winging a game, but it's good to know that DDI isn't considered something like a new PHB in that it won't advance the core experience of the game. Extra stuff is always good, and part of the reason I signed up for it.  I guess I'm pretty  hardcore?


> Nice choice of colors. It makes me think of unicorns.



Hey, man, be hardcore. Certainly you mean Warrior Stallions!


----------



## avin (Jun 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Warrior Stallions!




Oh no! It's charlie the warrior stallion!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus]YouTube - Charlie The Unicorn[/ame] 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFCSXr6qnv4]YouTube - Charlie the Unicorn 2[/ame] 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaCCkfjPm0o]YouTube - Charlie the Unicorn 3[/ame]


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 16, 2009)

Candy Mountain!! An Adventure!!!


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jun 16, 2009)

Hi Scott. Thanks for taking the time to come by and post in this thread.



Scott_Rouse said:


> The OP asked about rules and my answer is no the rules were not designed to work with a computer.




But in the slashdot interview, you said they were. Or Chris, Andy, or Sara did. I'm guessing that your position is that the interview was just a four-way "brain freeze" and you all made the same mistake at once. Is that what you're saying?

Your response and this comment also beg the question...



> Yes the 4e business model revolves pretty closely around [a computer].




So the rules were not designed to work with the business model's focus? Or one of its main foci?

I'm guessing that the explanation is that there are more important foci for the business model than computers, and that's what the 4e rules were designed to work with.

But the whole thing still comes across as disingenuous. There's nothing wrong with designing a game to leverage computer support. The way that WOTC has recoiled from acknowledging computer influence on 4e distresses me.


----------



## mudbunny (Jun 16, 2009)

Ycore Rixle said:


> But in the slashdot interview, you said they were. Or Chris, Andy, or Sara did. I'm guessing that your position is that the interview was just a four-way "brain freeze" and you all made the same mistake at once. Is that what you're saying?




Do you have a link to this interview?

Never mind.


----------



## catsclaw (Jun 16, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game.



Yeah, you can say that, sure, but then you sit down and try the Character Builder for a long afternoon over at a friend's house and then go back home and realize you've picked the wrong 6th level feat on your character printout and all your calculated bonuses are off and now it's raining out and your friend's probably left to see a movie anyway, and _then_ try and say DDI isn't "integral" to actually playing.

This wouldn't be a problem if the Character Builder didn't work.  And work well.  But it does.  The only obvious solution is to make the online tools buggy and broken, then _nobody_ would say you needed them to play.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 16, 2009)

Ycore Rixle said:


> Hi Scott. Thanks for taking the time to come by and post in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






> *Why 4th Edition? by DrMrLordX:*
> 3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically. Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> *Wizards of the Coast:*
> *The design team had play-tested Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 extensively and it was clear that the game needed to evolve. Since there were things we wanted to do digitally, like the Digital Game Table and the Character builder, it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, with rules that would support our online applications.* There were so many system improvements that the team really felt that the time had come to revamp the game. I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75.



I think you are reading too much into this. Rules can support an online application and not be beholden to them. It's not like the design & development teams took a look at a particular rule and said "we can't design it that way, it will never work on the character builder". 

Yes we developed 4e with D&Di in mind, as a entire product offering. Interpreting philosophy the whole rules development process with that one quote is disingenuous in and of itself.  In fact if you look at the quote bellow we fully acknowledge that 4e D&D will be strongly rooted in the tradition of a table top RPG.





> *Who are you trying to please? by HikingStick:*
> I started playing D&D (the basic boxed set) and AD&D ages ago--first on 1st Ed. rules and eventually ponying up for 2nd Ed. My friends and I liked the game because it was easy and simple (regarding game mechanics) in the first edition, and we did enjoy some of the changes going into 2nd E. With the arrival of the 3rd Ed. rules, you lost me as a regular player, along with many of my peers. I had no desire to relearn a gaming system that, for the most part, had its rules embedded in my head. My question is this: who are you trying to please? Are you attracting any younger gamers to the fold? If not, what's the point in publishing release after release after release? The question I'm asking beneath the surface is, "Why should I care at all?"
> 
> *WotC:*
> ...


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 16, 2009)

catsclaw said:


> Reason: Further increased the sarcasm, just in case the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post wasn't clear.




Mate, use a smiley like  or  or 

It is easy to miss your sarcasm, no smiley pretty much means serious post IMO. I cannot tell when people are being serious on teh interwebs otherwise, peeps say absolutely anything.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jun 16, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I think you are reading too much into this. Rules can support an online application and not be beholden to them. It's not like the design & development teams took a look at a particular rule and said "we can't design it that way, it will never work on the character builder".
> 
> Yes we developed 4e with D&Di in mind, as a entire product offering. Interpreting philosophy the whole rules development process with that one quote is disingenuous in and of itself.  In fact if you look at the quote bellow we fully acknowledge that 4e D&D will be strongly rooted in the tradition of a table top RPG.




I'm not coloring the whole rules development process with that one quote. I'm quite certain that there were many other, more important factors than computers. I alluded to them in my post (the "other foci" of the business model). I can understand you thinking it disingenuous if I were to say "ZOMG 4e is teh SILICONZ tabletop r deadxors." But I'm not saying that. If there is anything that I'm missing, I assure you that it is naivete, and not disingenuousness, on my part.

For the record, I enjoy playing 4e. It's a fun game. I don't see anything wrong with the idea of a tabletop game being influenced by computers. I do have several big issues with it, but I can and do enjoy it.

And I hear what you're saying: rules can support computer use without being informed by computer use. No doubt.

That's not what the interview says, though. The interview says that an important reason for changing the rules from 3.5 to 4e was to support computer use. If one reason to create the rules in the first place is to support computers, then that means that the computers are influencing the rules, not the other way around.

So, shrug. You're telling me not to read too much into the interview. Ok. It was very clear what was said, but I can understand that you didn't mean it, or it was out of context, or it was just a msitake. Honestly, I think since it was slashdot, you guys were probably just trying to hit the electronic side of things more than you usually would have, and this is how it came out.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 16, 2009)

The OP asked a simple question. Why were 3D-distances nerfed in 4E? I haven't seen that question answered. Until then, I'm personally not willing to dismiss the hypothesis that _one _goal of doing that was to accomodate virtual gaming tables. 

Speaking of quotes, here's another one. Pretty similar.



			
				Bill Slavicsek in "Wizards presents: Races and Classes" said:
			
		

> I knew we could make D&D better, stronger, faster, more fun. We could rebuild it. We could take the d20 game system we all know and love and rocket it to the next level.
> 
> At the same time we began imagining a robust and exciting suite of digital features that would enhance and complement the roleplaying game.
> 
> It became clear to me that we had two winning directions and that would be even more powerful when we combined them, and *that's when* we made the decision to move forward with 4th edition.




So here's the issue (bolded emphasis mine). What in 3E *wasn't *suitable for a complementary suite of digital tools (virtual tabletop included)? If your answer _includes _"unwieldy 3D distances in combat options" then the OP's point is correct. Bill here outright says that the d20 system had to be *rebuilt *to accomodate digital features.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 16, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> The OP asked a simple question. Why were 3D-distances nerfed in 4E? I haven't seen that question answered. Until then, I'm personally not willing to dismiss the hypothesis that _one _goal of doing that was to accomodate virtual gaming tables.




What is hard about 3D Instances in a Virtual Game Table? Especially considering that what they showed us as a preview had a 3D Engine and everything?

The only hard thing about 3D is at the Real Game Table. Simplifying 3D - or distances in general - is a boon for your play at home with real miniatures and real players that have to count squares using their eyes or tape measures at best.


----------



## avin (Jun 16, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> The OP asked a simple question. Why were 3D-distances nerfed in 4E? I haven't seen that question answered. Until then, I'm personally not willing to dismiss the hypothesis that _one _goal of doing that was to accomodate virtual gaming tables.




I don't know. Lots of games around have flying, invisibility... tale World of Warcraft for example. I think it would be easy to put that on a tabletop game.


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 16, 2009)

avin said:


> I don't know. Lots of games around have flying, invisibility... tale World of Warcraft for example. I think it would be easy to put that on a tabletop game.




Since 1997, my games have assumed 3D movement was commonplace; swimming. Granted, 4e has yet to bring undersea games into proper focus and I realize I am in the minority, when it comes to gaming preferences.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 16, 2009)

@Mustrum Ridcully

There are two issues here, really.

*1. *Which distances got nerfed by a couple of squares?

*2. *Which in-game elements got nerfed to DDM-scale-distances from non-DDM-scale-distances? (Or, more abstractly, which in-game possibilities for PCs and monsters were formerly outside DDM-codifiability and now have been brought into that fold?)

I'm not interested in 1. so much as I'm interested in 2. Look at Graz'zt' statblock in 3E and then at 4E, and have a look at his teleporting abilities. There's a paradigm shift here, and that seems to indicate that WotC tried to reduce the amount of game situations which formerly couldn't be portrayed (or not portrayed effectively) on a battemat, virtual or otherwise. 

I say "or otherwise", so what's the catch?

*A.* Nothing I saw in the 4E preview clips couldn't be captured on a *physical* Chessex battlemap. Now, I'm not one of those professional gamers who carry mega- or mondo-mats to their sessions (only time I've seen those were during Living Greyhawk - they are awesome!), but space isn't a problem. 

*B.* The real difference between a non-virtual and a virtual game table is that the former setup lends itself much better to resolving situations which don't require a visual (battlemap-style) presentation AT ALL. This is why, for me, point *2.* is central in this debate.

*PS. *Further evidence of this tendency to reduce the amount of off-gametable situations strictly required in a session of D&D are skill challenges. Skill challenges are the DMs best friend when adjudicating how much roleplay is good for his game. Suppose the players have to convince a duke of something (to use an example in the DMG). If the DM wants, he can have his players roleplay the whole situation in a full hour with in-character conversation only and interspersing skill checks when appropriate. If, on the other hand, personal preferences or your general setup run counter to that style of play, then the skill challenge system just as much allows the DM to "dice through" the conversation with a couple of quick die rolls (an Intimidate check here, a Bluff check there, and the duke gives in). That's the _genius _of skill challenges, really. You can use them to either end - heavy RP or erasing all RP whatsoever - depending on what serves your needs best. At a virtual game table setup I'm vastly appreciative of having this option, and who wouldn't?

And, by the way, I chose the examples of skill challenges to make a more general point. The issue isn't (as Scott Rouse's responses seem to indicate so far) that, once a game starts to accomodate a style of play heavily reliant on a virtual game table, that game would no longer accomodate other styles of play _at all_. The issue is much rather that once you build a game which _also _accomodates the former set up, visible (pun intended) repercussions thereof on game play will be inevitable. Some repercussions are outright adjustments, some of them half-way concesssions, and so on. None of these can be negated by building up a false dichotomy of exclusively serving one or another style of play (non/virtual). As Frank said, this _isn't_ the thread where people decry the death of good old tabletop gaming.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 16, 2009)

Ycore Rixle said:


> That's not what the interview says, though. The interview says that an important reason for changing the rules from 3.5 to 4e was to support computer use. If one reason to create the rules in the first place is to support computers, then that means that the computers are influencing the rules, not the other way around.



I agree in principle that you could interpret that one quote like that. The Rouse has provided assurances that you're not interpreting it correctly, but you're not prepared to accept his word on that. What I don't understand is what your beef is exactly. You've spent several posts trying to snare WotC in some kind of trap... but what trap? That computers influenced the design of the game?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jun 16, 2009)

Ycore Rixle said:


> That's not what the interview says, though. The interview says that an important reason for changing the rules from 3.5 to 4e was to support computer use. If one reason to create the rules in the first place is to support computers, then that means that the computers are influencing the rules, not the other way around.




Simply, in my own opinion anyway:

3.5 rules, especially with classes like the fighter, the wizard, psionics, book of nine swords, etc ... basically, a number of different classes each following their own 'rules' meant that it would be VERY difficult to put that stuff into character building. Not to mention monster design stuff.

With new rules, ANY new rules, you can make sure you have consistency in character design which, in addition to other benefits, also works well with computer implementation.

Computer implementation is another reason (in addition to other reasons) that a new rule system is a good idea. A new system, integrated from the outset, is easier to pull off than a system that has been out for years that you THEN try to integrate afterwards.

There are some computer design-y stuff in the design of 4e. Classes and races, for example, follow a very object oriented approach with the 'abstract' class being something that gives you X HP, Y skills, powers at certain levels, etc ... While there is variation in implementation, the idea of what a class is, what a race is, etc ... has an abstract skeleton. This means that, for example, a new class added to the character builder shouldn't be too difficult. That means a new power source would be a lot easier to implement. Compare that to 3.5 psionics, or the stuff from book of nine swords or unearthed arcana, etc ...

Digital initiative integration is/was another reason to go with 3.5 over 4e, and it's something where the elements of simplicity, which help for balance issues, and making the game new player friendly, etc ... ALSO help the digital initiative. It also helps making more products to be sold, like the power cards (and the ability to put things like power cards into the minis).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I agree in principle that you could interpret that one quote like that. The Rouse has provided assurances that you're not interpreting it correctly, but you're not prepared to accept his word on that. What I don't understand is what your beef is exactly. You've spent several posts trying to snare WotC in some kind of trap... but what trap? That computers influenced the design of the game?




AFAICT, The Rouse has not actually provided assurances that the OP is incorrect, but rather provided assurances that 4e wasn't designed to be played exclusively on computer, or designed to require a computer, which are not what the OP said.

If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it.  And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.

I recall when WotC announced 4e, after having indicated that there would be no new edition for some time, and people defending the company on the basis of "_*They didn't actually say*_....."

So what I'm saying now is, _*actually say*_.  Yea or nay.  The expected limitations of the ddi did/did not influence 4e rules design.  Because the closest thing we have to The Rouse answering that question is 

Yes we developed 4e with D&Di in mind, as a entire product offering.​
which suggests that the OP is correct.

At least we finally have confirmation that WotC has made the game more intrinsically tied to miniatures use, and that this ties into their business model.  A point, I will add, that (when brought up here, at least) has tended to make some folks believe other folks were seeing things that weren't there.



			
				Scott Rouse said:
			
		

> Yes, I think it is pretty safe to say the 4e rules were designed with minis use in mind. With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work. This was a rules decision influenced by both a style of play that had come out of 3e and the business model that style of play created. WoTC didn't invent playing D&D with maps and minis but we certainly folded it more into the core that TSR had done.





RC


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it.  And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.



I wish you and Ycore would just state your problems with the 'digital influence' in a way we can actually talk about!  Are you mad for some reason? Do you think 4E is worse for it? Do you think the new edition came too early because of it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I wish you and Ycore would just state your problems with the 'digital influence' in a way we can actually talk about!




It is an error to assume that correct observation of a lack of real statement that there is not "digital influence" is the same as a problem with "digital influence".

If one wishes to play a game, it's influences hardly matter.  If one does not wish to play a game, likewise.  Influences are useful for discussing what makes a game the way it is, but are not really useful otherwise.

IMHO, at least.

What I *do* have a problem with is a sort of "X said Y, *but you're not prepared to accept his word on that*" when in fact X has not said Y, being used repeatedly for various topics in various threads.  

I have a problem with a lack of straight answers.  I have a problem with responses that are intended to seem like straight answers while avoiding the question.  I have a problem with prevarication that is later defended with "Well, X _*didn't actually say*_ Y" when earlier on it was certainly believed that X was saying Y, but in fact X was playing a game of dancing around answering the question.

That's something I have a big problem with.

And, AFAICT, it seems to be WotC's current policy toward just about any potential criticism of anything.



> Are you mad for some reason?




Well, I am not particularly fond of the "He makes a point, therefore I will imply that he is emotionally destraught" sort of attack.  However, apart from the ad hominem, I wouldn't say that I have anything in particular to be mad about.



> Do you think 4E is worse for it?




If by "worse" you mean "not as much what I personally am looking for in a game", then, yes, I would say that the business decisions driving WotC have made a worse game than necessary.  I would actually peg the minis aspect as the real culprit, though, rather than the DDI.  Of secondary importance, I would say that the decision to go with the GSL has had a negative effect on the reverse continuity of 4e with previous editions.



> Do you think the new edition came too early because of it?




Nope.

I think the timing was good for a new edition.

I'm not particularly happy about the "song-and-dance pretend-there-isn't-a-new-edition-in-the-works-but-don't-actually-say-it" that WotC peddled, and I am not particularly happy about the edition that we got.  I'd really prefer that it was published under the OGL, but you can't have everything.

I understand some folks are very happy with the new edition, and that's cool.  I think that there are some really good ideas in the new edition, and that's fantastic.  I believe that the game design discussions that kicked off with the previews of the new edition were some of the best (most productive) threads on EN World (for me, at least), and that is really fantastic.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it.  And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.




The rules are already limited by turn-based structure on a grid. I fail to see why the digital factor is so relevant as discussed in this thread here. The virtual table has not even launched. Mutants&Masterminds could use a digital application to help build characters too. If there is some kind of limitation this is the grid focused one, not the digital one. It is true that Wotc games are strict structures of limitations upon which a series of executables is run. M:tG being the best example, the executables being the individual cards. 3E is the same, character classes and their utilities from level 1 to 20 being the "executables". And 4e is the same too.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Jun 16, 2009)

What's with the lawyer-speak? You haven't signed a contract with WotC so they owe you nothing. You're bringing up quotes from a promotional interview, not a congressional hearing. 

In every interview Michael Bay says his next movie is going to be great, but you get a steaming turd in the end. Why can't Michael Bay be honest and tell us that Transformers 2 is just crap with explosions?

I'm sure that WotC did consider how difficult it would be to build a character builder for their new system. Just look at all the craziness the developers of PCgen have had to do to make a generator kinda-work for 3.5. It's a mess and forget about entering your own data unless you come from a programming background.

Maybe the conspiracy is that the game designers took what they learned building Magic: the Gathering and all their other design experience and applied it to DnD. It's easier to use and expand a system that's built on some sort of non-shifting standards. You experience this every day when you plug something into a wall outlet or drive a car. 

So yeah, they thought about how they would store the game in a computer. Everyone uses computers for all sorts of things. If someone doesn't like the idea of computers and gaming maybe they should stop using a computer-based message board to give game designers a bad day.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 16, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> The OP asked a simple question. Why were 3D-distances nerfed in 4E? I haven't seen that question answered. Until then, I'm personally not willing to dismiss the hypothesis that _one _goal of doing that was to accomodate virtual gaming tables.
> 
> Speaking of quotes, here's another one. Pretty similar.
> 
> ...




Again reading so much more into it.

A) We knew we were approaching the need for 4e. 3e was getting long in the tooth and we were approaching what appears to be the natural end of an edition at 10 years. We were 8 on the 3.x era and although we could have limped along for another couple of years with 3.5 it was clear we were approaching the natural end.

B) We knew we wanted to do a suite of digital tools. Yes these could have been done for 3.5 but given development times and factoring in the impending need for 4e it made sense to do A & B together.

Developed independently we could have created a situation where we had a digital suite of tools that either would go through a major overhaul a couple years after launch (to support 4e) or would force us to stay in an edition to a potentially unhealthy (from both the business & gameplay) length of time (to amortize the dev costs over a longer time for the 3.5 version). 

So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 16, 2009)

well, bit off main topic, but I can say, after having forked out a lot of money for E-Tools (which was clunky and 3rd ed was really slow and tedious to build characters for), and now subscribing to DDi, that the 4thed character builder is superb, and the other stuff like the monster builder, makes my job as DM a hell of a lot easier.

So whatever their intentions, they get an A+ from me 

(apart from the 4th ed Realms lacking character/charm, and the virtual tabletop not appearing which I desperately wanted as I'm partially housebound  *cough, poke poke to WOTC ribs!!* )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2009)

xechnao said:


> The rules are already limited by turn-based structure on a grid. I fail to see why the digital factor is so relevant as discussed in this thread here.




It may not be.  As I said, I think that the decision to push the grid/minis is the biggest factor.  I'm not even sure whether or not the digital stuff _*is*_ a factor.

What I am sure of is that the OP asked a question, which can be paraphrased as "Did the expected limitations of the ddi influence 4e rules design?" and that that question can be given a straight answer.

I only jumped into the fray because it was alleged that the OP had been given a straight answer, and had refused to accept The Rouse's word, which was patently false.



Scott_Rouse said:


> So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.




So, to be clear, are you saying that the expected limitations of the ddi did not influence 4e rules design?  A "Yes" or "No" answer would be peachy.


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, to be clear, are you saying that the expected limitations of the ddi did not influence 4e rules design?  A "Yes" or "No" answer would be peachy.



I think you've been watching too many cable TV pundits.  "YES or NO!"

You want a simple answer, but maybe there's not one.  I think Scott's been really clear and quite forthcoming over the course of the thread.

edit:


			
				TheRouse said:
			
		

> So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) *but this had little to no impact on rules choices*. Those rules choices *more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system *after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.




-O


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> snip
> 
> So, to be clear, are you saying that the expected limitations of the ddi did not influence 4e rules design?  A "Yes" or "No" answer would be peachy.
> 
> RC






I will say no. We made the game we thought people would want to play (and what we wanted to play) and would buy.  

I will also say I disagree with the premise that a game system would need to be nerfed for digital applications. One could design an extremely complex rules system that could be run via a computer based system. For example Magic: The Gathering Online has over 6000 unique cards in the system. The game has a level 5 judge AI that manages over 36 million possible rules combination's in real time. In my mind there seems to be little if any reason that one would need to nerf a rule like movement on a x,y, or z axis for a digital application.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2009)

...and can I note that there are plenty of reasons to reduce or eliminate all-day PC flight without resorting to explanations involving battlemats or software limitations? 

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think you've been watching too many cable TV pundits.




I think that Scott can (and has....Thank You Scott!) answered that question himself.

EDIT:  And, for the record, The Rouse, I would tend to agree with you that online applications shouldn't necessarily nerf play, given what computers are capable of doing today.  I'm just tired of the "Avoid A Direct Answer" Dance, and greatly appreciate your answering firmly.  XP to you!


RC


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jun 16, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> B) We knew we wanted to do a suite of digital tools. Yes these could have been done for 3.5 but given development times and factoring in the impending need for 4e it made sense to do A & B together.




Ah, now this actually makes sense to me. This is a reason I had not thought of for how computers would influence 4th edition development, but not the 4e rules. I think that may have been the source of what I wasn't getting: I was thinking of 4e development as synonomous with 4e rules development, when in fact there is more to it than that (in particular, amortizing computer dev costs over a longer game lifetime). Thanks Scott.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 16, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> For example Magic: The Gathering Online has over 6000 unique cards in the system. The game has a level 5 judge AI that manages over 36 million possible rules combination's in real time. In my mind there seems to be little if any reason that one would need to nerf a rule like movement on a x,y, or z axis for a digital application.




How did they translate Chaos Orb over to the digital version of MtG?


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jun 16, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I wish you and Ycore would just state your problems with the 'digital influence' in a way we can actually talk about!  Are you mad for some reason? Do you think 4E is worse for it? Do you think the new edition came too early because of it?




I said in my post that I have no problems with computer influence (or digital).

As for the rest... do you really want to talk about it?  This should probably go in another thread. But I'll try to make it pertinent to this one, and I'll try to limit it. 

Yep, I'm mad. It's ok, I'll live.  But here's one thing that irks me about 4e: there is a culture in 4e that believes that words don't mean what they say. And I totally get that this is mostly just me, and it doesn't bother other people. So blame the internet for letting me foist my personal pet peeves all over the globe. 

But here are some examples of words with no meaning in 4e: pathfinder paragon path doesn't have any powers or abilities to find paths; demons per the MM don't know fear but they are afraid; trip doesn't mean knock something down off its legs. There are many more, including power titles (by design, which is totally valid, just not my cup of tea - actually it can be my cup of tea, but not in combo with the rest).

This thread seems to me to touch on the same issue writ large: WOTC has distanced itself from the idea that computers influenced the design of 4e, and then when some quotes surface that say computers influenced the design of 4e, we're told that we're reading too much into those quotes. As if those quotes had no meaning.

We weren't reading anything into those quotes. Quoting is not reading into. The quotes just flat out said what they said.

Now, Scott has supplied an elegant solution, which is that computers influenced the development of 4e but not the rules development of 4e. I can see that answer. It's a good answer.

But it's not what Scott and others said in the slashdot interview, and it's not what Bill said in Races and Classes.

It's just not. There's no reading into it necessary. Words mean what they mean. They might not be important words, or words representative of the whole picture. That's cool.

So that's what I was irked about, since you asked.  Not computer influence. I think a strong argument can be made - was made in the WOTC offices - that it would be silly _not_ to consider computers in the design of a tabletop game with sufficient resources.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2009)

There is certainly a contingent -- smaller on EN World than some other places, due to good moderation -- who are more than happy to attempt to subvert any attempt at rational discourse if the conclusions drawn might not be what they would prefer.  For example, in this thread, the attempt to get a clear answer was met with some hostility.  One might wonder why that is?

Certainly when the question was phrased clearly, The Rouse was capable of answering it clearly and without rancor.  Heck, without Gamorean guards, even.  

IMHO, we should expect clear and honest answers.  IRL, of course, it is often surprising when we get them.  


RC


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 16, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> How did they translate Chaos Orb over to the digital version of MtG?




Chaos Orb and some of those early cards are not in the MTGO system.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

It should be noted, however, that a simulator could be devised to translate the card to the online game, if WotC wanted to do so.

RC


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 17, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> How did they translate Chaos Orb over to the digital version of MtG?




Translating Chaos Orb would actually be easy if you think about it. Chaos Orb is simply a random number generator linked to the cards on the table. Simply write a script that generates the number and visually it would be easy as well.

The only reason Chaos Orb would not be translated to MTGO is mainly because it is banned in practically every format you can think of. Only Open would allow for it and relatively few people play the Open format (even without Chaos orb, the brokeness of Open leads to few fans of it)


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> For example, in this thread, the attempt to get a clear answer was met with some hostility.  One might wonder why that is?



One might look at the ways in which one's questions are asked, if one were to wonder that.

One might draw their own conclusions from that.

You know, if one wants to talk obliquely.

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 17, 2009)

With as many interviews and statements the launch of 4E has created, one could find enough evidence to convince oneself of almost anything one wanted to believe. That doesn't necessarily make it so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> One might look at the ways in which one's questions are asked, if one were to wonder that.
> 
> One might draw their own conclusions from that.
> 
> You know, if one wants to talk obliquely.




Oh, I see.  One shouldn't want straight answers, and one should simply rephrase the question ad infinitum ad nauseum, accepting whatever obliqueness one receives as an answer, and never point out that the original question hasn't been answered at all.

Then, of course, one should be neither surprised nor upset that one's question hasn't been answered because, after all, one was unwilling to say clearly what one expected to be answered.

And a good time is had by all.  All one must sacrifice is the possibility of having the information necessary to have an informed/rational opinion about any topic.  That not actually answering the question serves to increase whatever hostility and/or suspicion the asker might be feeling notwithstanding, of course.

One might wonder whether or not a straight answer would have terminated this thread days ago for lack of any further interest.  Often, it seems to me, that dancing around the question is more hostile -- and certainly more oblique -- than a straight question or a straight answer.

Of course, I can also see where that might make some uncomfortable.  As I said earlier, there is certainly a contingent -- smaller on EN World than some other places, due to good moderation -- who are more than happy to attempt to subvert any attempt at rational discourse if the conclusions drawn might not be what they would prefer. 

Thankfully, The Rouse is more of a gentleman than either of us.  Or, perhaps, both combined.  


RC


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> For example, in this thread, the attempt to get a clear answer was met with some hostility.  One might wonder why that is?



Not at all (if it's my post you're talking about). I was railing against the innuendo which I felt was being thrown around implying that Scott was politicking and avoiding a direct answer because it would somehow incriminate himself. To cut through that, I asked if you (and by inference Ycore) could speak more plainly, ironically as you were asking Scott to do the very same thing. 

Since then, I've slept on it, and you've both brought more clarity to your side of the conversation, and I'm happy that all is now right with the world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Nice cut to your jib on that post, wedgeski.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> ...and can I note that there are plenty of reasons to reduce or eliminate all-day PC flight without resorting to explanations involving battlemats or software limitations?
> 
> -O




This post had me burst out laughing. Thank you Obryn, that's a very valid and at the same time light hearted response to my attempts to extrapolate evidence for digital impact in 4E's design.

Scott, thanks too for taking the trouble to spell out the quotes we brought up. I'm extremely grateful for how the thread has progressed. 

What's more, I think it's indicative of something rather positive about this thread if there's even *room *for Raven Crowking to air some of his more general observations re EnWorld. While not all of you might agree with him/her, claiming that the OP's question was oblique (perhaps deliberately so) seemed a bit off to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> While not all of you might agree with him/her




Him.  (Daniel J. Bishop on the Web)

And, please be warned that even appearing to agree with me will automatically exclude you from all the best social circles.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Him.  (Daniel J. Bishop on the Web)
> 
> And, please be warned that even appearing to agree with me will automatically exclude you from all the best social circles.



I agree.

Oh, wait! Damn...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I agree.
> 
> Oh, wait! Damn...




Well, so much for you being invited to the Grand Duke's Ball.........


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, I can also see where that might make some uncomfortable.



It's not even remotely about what the answer would be.  It's completely about how (and how often) the same question was asked.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> It's not even remotely about what the answer would be.  It's completely about how (and how often) the same question was asked.
> 
> -O




Directly, and until it was actually answered.

Yes, I get that.  Sorry it makes you uncomfortable.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Directly, and until it was actually answered.
> 
> Yes, I get that.  Sorry it makes you uncomfortable.



Uncomfortable <> Annoyed that you got an answer but kept asking anyway.  But that's all I have left to say on the topic.

Don't worry - pundits with self-named television shows bug me for the same reason.

-O


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It should be noted, however, that a simulator could be devised to translate the card to the online game, if WotC wanted to do so.
> 
> RC




Even in such a heavily exception-based design, some designs are so oblique to the norm that it is easier not to include them in a digital re-expression.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Annoyed that you got an answer but kept asking anyway.




You confuse me with someone else, I think.

I didn't ask the initial question; I merely noted that it had not been answered and then rephrased it so that it could be answered in a straightforward manner.  I received a straightforward answer, thanked the gentleman responsible, and that is very much that.

Indeed, once a straight answer was received, I haven't noticed anyone else asking the same question, although some (and, please note, I am not one of them) have expressed doubts as to The Rouse's conclusions re: limitations of computer applications.

Methinks you are seeing what you want to see.  

Not unlike a television pundit yourself.....And far more so than anyone else on this thread, AFAICT.  



> But that's all I have left to say on the topic.




Well, that's all right then.


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> You confuse me with someone else, I think.



No, you were just kind of late to the fray, and insisting on a short answer when a detailed one was already given, several times.  For example, asking YES or NO right after a reasoned and clear answer was provided - it was just one that didn't fall into the multiple choice you wanted to set up.

Asking for a yes or no answer to a complex question is a particularly belligerent rhetorical tactic, which is why it's much-beloved by lawyers, politicians, and pundits.  Arguably, it gives less information than a full explanation, because the shades of gray are all collapsed down into a single black-or-white answer.  It's pretty useless when you're trying to find an answer to a question; it's mostly useful when you want to hunt for soundbites, gather ammunition, force a trap, force an emotional response, or try and make the answerer look dishonest.

I have no interest in fighting anyone else's fights for them, nor do I have any interest in suppressing any kind of truth.  I took exception to your argument, not its substance.

Anyway, if you'd like to continue this discussion elsewhere, we can certainly do so.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, you were just kind of late to the fray, and insisting on a short answer when a detailed one was already given, several times.




And here I thought you had said all you had to say.  

Anyway, as I said in my first post, an answer to the OP's question (detailed or otherwise) had not already appeared in the thread.  The only reason I posted to this thread was that it was alleged that the OP's question had been answered, and he was just unwilling to accept The Rouse's word.

That was bullocks then, and it is bullocks now.  I suspect that we are both well aware of that.

I will ask now, as I did in my first post, that you point out where you believe that The Rouse actually answered the question prior to my involvement in this thread.  Heck, if Scott thinks he answered already, I'd be happy to have him point out to me where.  Maybe he (and you) didn't understand what was being asked, and therefore thought something upthread was a suitable answer.   



RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> And here I thought you had said all you had to say.



On the difference between annoyance and fear of the answer?  Yep.  On everything else?  Evidently not.



> Anyway, as I said in my first post, an answer to the OP's question (detailed or otherwise) had not already appeared in the thread.  The only reason I posted to this thread was that it was alleged that the OP's question had been answered, and he was just unwilling to accept The Rouse's word.
> 
> That was bullocks then, and it is bullocks now.  I suspect that we are both well aware of that.
> 
> I will ask now, as I did in my first post, that you point out where you believe that The Rouse actually answered the question prior to my involvement in this thread.  Heck, if Scott thinks he answered already, I'd be happy to have him point out to me where.  Maybe he (and you) didn't understand what was being asked, and therefore thought something upthread was a suitable answer.



OK, then, we can go down the rabbit hole.

OP's question:


			
				Original Question said:
			
		

> I made a claim in a thread on gleemax that someone from WotC had said they designed 4e with the suite of online tools in mind...*i.e. they knew that the online tools would have limitations and a particular focus, and they designed the system with attention to excluding those limitations and addressing that focus.*
> 
> (For example, heavy use of a battlegrid, and nerfing certain three dimensional powers like flight that would not work well on a virtual tabletop).



The first post from The Rouse:


> Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.



Not really the exact question - I'd say he read it wrong - but he fixes that soon.

later on the same page...


> The simple answer is no 4e was not designed to play easier on a computer.




and still on the _same page_...


> Are we talking rules or business model?
> 
> The OP asked about rules and my answer is no the rules were not designed to work with a computer.




Next page...


> I think you are reading too much into this. Rules can support an online application and not be beholden to them. It's not like the design & development teams took a look at a particular rule and said "we can't design it that way, it will never work on the character builder".




And only later on did you say....


			
				You said:
			
		

> If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it. And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.




After which, he posted in reply to someone else...


> So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.




And you asked for a yes or no answer again.

AFAICT, there was a direct answer to the OP in Post #29, and answers both earlier and later.  Including several expansions on this answer.  Therefore, my perception is that you were using the rhetorical "YES or NO" dichotomy as a rhetorical club, rather than any attempt to get real information.  After all, that information had already been provided.

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 17, 2009)

In addition, a specific answer to a specific question that is implied at the core of the computer accusations of 4E, but not specifically asked elsewhere:



thecasualoblivion said:


> I think the question they are trying to pose is was 4E designed to avoid mechanics that wouldn't translate well to being played on the computer. Flight isn't a good example, but how about the 3.5E Silent/Minor/Major Image(AD&D's Phantasmal Force) spells? Open ended things that can do a rather undefined anything, for example.






Scott_Rouse said:


> As for open ended rules as mentioned above. I would suspect those were avoided in 4e because these are often the most unbalanced/broken rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

]







			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> OK, then, we can go down the rabbit hole.




Indeed.

Original Question (rephrased as a question):  Is it true that "WotC....knew that the online tools would have limitations and a particular focus, and they designed the system with attention to excluding those limitations and addressing that focus"?

Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.​
The OP didn't ask if DDI was necessary to play D&D, which is what The Rouse answered.  (Since this has been pointed out prior to my chiming in on this thread, had you actually read the thread you would know this.  Perhaps you do.)

The simple answer is no 4e was not designed to play easier on a computer.​
The OP asked about rules and my answer is no the rules were not designed to work with a computer.​
Again, not answers to the question asked.  Of course, here The Rouse may simply have been confused by the way the OP worded the question.  The OP is not asking (anywhere AFAICT) if the rules were intended be used with a computer, or if it was intended to be easier to play on a computer than off.  He is not asking if it was the intent of WotC to make a game that requires DDI in order to play, thus forcing people into a subscription model.  

He is asking if foreknowledge of expected limitations of the DDI influenced rules construction.

I think you are reading too much into this. Rules can support an online application and not be beholden to them.​
Again, not what the OP asked, although the next bit is closer.  (BTW, strange grammar there, Scott.....the anticedent of "them" must be "rules" because of the plural.   )

It's not like the design & development teams took a look at a particular rule and said "we can't design it that way, it will never work on the character builder".​
This _*seems*_ to answer the question on the surface, but it only says that there was not a _*particular kind*_ of (shall we say, rather extreme?) influence.  Not unlike the statements WotC made when it was rumoured that 4e was in the works, so that they were later able to deny _*actually having said*_ that 4e was not.  For instance, this response doesn't at all relate to how the combat-focused nature of 4e character abilities might have been influenced by an online model.  

Or, for that matter, how the *distribution* of rules (i.e., what comes out when, and in what book) might have been influenced by the expectation of selling DDI subsriptions by way of offering previews.  (Which is a good idea, with nothing wrong with it, but wraps into the OP's question, and is not addressed by The Rouse's answer).

The expectation of a digital battlemat might (as the OP suggests) limit mobility to within what the digital battlemat is expected to handle, within any given encounter, without any designer saying "we can't design it that way, it will never work on the character builder."

It doesn't answer the question.

Likewise "So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems." does not mean "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model".

Indeed, parsed out, The Rouse is saying "launching D&Di with 4e...had little to no impact on rules choices" (remember those pronouns and anticedents?).  This could just as easily be a statement that the concurrent launch date had no impact.  And the OP isn't talking about the launch date.  Again, very, very similar to some wishy-washy answers around the 4e release which were defended.....by *you*, if memory serves.....with the old "Well, they didn't actually say....." routine.

Frankly, I am tired of the "Well, they didn't actually say....." routine.

YMMV, and obviously does.

BTW, asking for a clear answer is never a "rhetorical club" unless the person being asked for a clear answer is being evasive.  

Which may be why The Rouse was able to respond with a clear answer.

Frankly, I am tired of the evasive routine as well.

YMMV, and obviously does.


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 17, 2009)

Stop now, or you're both getting booted from the thread. We'd rather you avoid this sort of bickering.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Edited for Ninja Mod


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Jun 17, 2009)

_No._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> What I really want to know is: When did The_Rouse stop beating his wife?




AFAICT, The Rouse is a gentleman, and I am certainly happy with the clear way in which he answered the question I put to him.  If it seems as though I am implying otherwise, please accept my correction and my apologies to Scott.  As I said upthread, I assume that The Rouse was simply confused as to what was actually being asked.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 17, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Stop now, or you're both getting booted from the thread. We'd rather you avoid this sort of bickering.




And, of course, Piratecat is a gentleman as well.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jun 17, 2009)

EDIT: Nevermind


----------



## Badwe (Jun 17, 2009)

Anyone who has ever worked in design/development of any kind, or even someone who has followed a game closely from the release of initial details, should be familiar with the effect that happens when the original vision of a product comes flying into a wall of reality.  Things change, design documents are updated, project requirements are trimmed, and what you saw in your head might not line up perfectly with what ended up on the screen/page.

As the developers posting on the forums to world of warcraft can attest, a straight answer is just about the most dangerous thing you can ever post.  Most people love straight answers, but a select few seem to enjoy misusing quotes, and the normal people who read those posts tend to get defensive at the prospect.  Getting info from someone tied to the product, like Scott Rouse, is exciting because it's "inside info".  When people percieve, weather valid or not, that such "inside info" might be put into jeapordy to prove a point, they might react unfavorably.

So, the elephant in the room is that it seems like there is a drive to get to say "SEE! SEE! you PROMISED to make a game table and now you're NOT. you LIED!" or possibly "the game is the way it is because of computers, and you want us to subscribe".  Frankly neither of these suppositions are valid to me because i'm happy with 4e as is, regardless of some suggested prior intent.  Also, Scott is a smart man and a PR guy, he's not going to give out any gotchas or ways for him to get strung by his own words.  He gets PAID to be able to answer questions with minimal splash damage.  Respect the man for his skill, respect the time he takes to talk to a bunch of forum-goers, and treat him with the same consideration you would for anyone who is trying to do their job with a genuine concern for both the quality of the product and happiness of the customers.

Frankly, I don't care what wizard's said in february 2008. I bet they said a lot of things that aren't true or don't reflect their state today.  I also don't think they'll ever openly admit to it if they have a choice, they're a business.  We've spent 5 pages discussing weather the 4e rules were influenced by this or that, but nobody has bothered to ask "Should we care?", because the answer is "no".  Over a year into 4e, you have made up your mind on your stance on 4e, and answering this question isn't going to change your mind, so what does it matter?


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 17, 2009)

Thank you.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 17, 2009)

Virtual Tabletop issues aside, I distinctly recall WotC people saying that they designed the game so that it wouldn't need to have the rules altered when ported over to video games and the like, so it could remain "official D&D rules" no matter the medium or platform.  This was at a convention before the game was released, maybe even at the Gen Con announcement of 4E.  I don't believe it was an official comment, but may have been something the designers said in a fan interview or the like. I don't say that to make an accusation, just in the interest of being informed and taking things in context.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 17, 2009)

Jack Colby said:


> I distinctly recall WotC people saying that they designed the game so that it wouldn't need to have the rules altered when ported over to video games and the like, so it could remain "official D&D rules" no matter the medium or platform.



And that might have been true at the time - at least as far as this person knew.  I'm always skeptical of hearsay, though - people tend to read what they want into it.  It doesn't mean it's still true, though - or that it even made it as far as the final, pre-publication rules of 4e.  It might have been one of those things on the original design document that got immediately tossed out, for all we know.

On the subject of verbal statements and interviews...  The thing with interviews is that they're much less reliable than people want them to be.  (1) They're based on one person's possibly-flawed understanding; and (2) people mess up their words pretty often, mis-speak, overstate, and understate... so treating them as any kind of canon is always an iffy proposition.  This is doubly true when the person who's speaking isn't in the business of talking to the public - like, say, a game designer.   When you add context into the mix, it gets even _worse_.

I'd also like to say that I agree with everything in Badwe's post and thinks he made some great insights.

-O


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2009)

Two things are repeated over and over on these boards.




Badwe said:


> (. . .) it seems like there is a drive to get to say "SEE! SEE! you PROMISED to make a game table and now you're NOT. you LIED!" or possibly "the game is the way it is because of computers, and you want us to subscribe".





The first is to please not attribute motives to other posters.  Posters, publisher or otherwise, can choose not to answer questions if they like but it is always fair to ask a polite question if publishers, like myself or WotC or any size in between, choose to be a part of the community.  What is unfair is to try to marginalize another community member by attributing less than favorable motives to them.  You wouldn't like it if it were done to you, I wouldn't like it, and it's fair to say that no one likes it.  As a community member, I ask you not to do that to me or other posters.




Badwe said:


> We've spent 5 pages discussing weather the 4e rules were influenced by this or that, but nobody has bothered to ask "Should we care?", because the answer is "no".  Over a year into 4e, you have made up your mind on your stance on 4e, and answering this question isn't going to change your mind, so what does it matter?





A second thing repeated on these boards regularly is that if a subject doesn't interest you, ignore a thread and move on to another.  Just because you do not care about a subject does not mean that others are somehow lesser for having an interest, whether that is polite discourse over game design, LARPing, one edition or another, etc.  Posting in a thread to a subject that does not interest you to tell others that no one else cares or that the posters in the thread should not care amounts to threadcrapping and that is something I am asking you as a fellow community member to not do.


Thanks.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 17, 2009)

Mark said:


> The first is to please not attribute motives to other posters.  Posters, publisher or otherwise, can choose not to answer questions if they like but it is always fair to ask a polite question if publishers, like myself or WotC or any size in between, choose to be a part of the community.  What is unfair is to try to marginalize another community member by attributing less than favorable motives to them.  You wouldn't like it if it were done to you, I wouldn't like it, and it's fair to say that no one likes it.  As a community member, I ask you not to do that to me or other posters.




You say that as if this sort of thing doesn't happen regularly on these and all forums. It could be argued that this thread was about the "gotcha" motive from the very start, referencing an old quote that kind of said 4E was built for digital purposes.


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> (snip)






Let's avoid bickering as Piratecat has warned and keep on topic, the design of the game (rather than the motives of the posters, real or imagined).


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 17, 2009)

Mark said:


> _<snip>_
> 
> Thanks.




I'm with Badwe on this one.  He didn't single out any individuals, and he didn't say that everybody is acting this way . . . but he is totally correct in the observation that there is a fannish desire of some folks to twist and misuse "official" quotes to prove their own pet points, which are usually negative.

It's not unique to D&D fandom by any means, just read the comments section after any news article on just about any news site and you'll see the same thing.



> Let's avoid bickering as Piratecat has warned.




The past page-and-a-half seem pretty civil to me.  Disagreement is not necessarily bickering, but can merely be argument and discussion.


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> (snip)






Except that, again, asking polite question about game design of a publisher is acceptable behavior on these boards but attributing motives to posters and threadcrapping is not.  Not that it is being done intentionally, but let's please get back on topic and stop derailing the thread.


----------



## Badwe (Jun 17, 2009)

Well, one person took issue with what I said and one person found me insightful, of course you know where my response is headed 

Mark, i apologize if my somewhat crude summaries of my impressions of some of the more badgering questions came off as unfair attribution.  In part it was my intent to remain general and not name names so as not to create an ad hominem attack but still acknowledge the concern that some being referred to as hostile are so worked up about.  Let me amend slightly and say that, without meaning to imply that anyone was actually trying to say those things, I had concern, and percieved that others had concern, that such implications were POSSIBLE, and that others before me perhaps felt a need to nip that in the bud only to have it implied they were hostile.

Hmmm, all too quickly I discover the dangers of talking directly to a percieved issue. Still, nuance or otherwise I should have realized I was somewhat strawmanning the other side, so for that I apologize.  It was my intent to illustrate the source of concern rather than demonize.

Next, and this is another one where subtlety was lost on me in my original post.  I in fact care very much about this thread.  To go back to my references from earlier, I care in the same way I care about any thread in which the devs of warcraft might respond.  Because Mr. Rouse, someone inside WotC, responded, I am very much interested in what he has to say.  What he says gives me insight into what the future holds for a game I play.  If, and I by no means imply that i do, I were to percieve an attempt to construe his words in a way that he is not ok with, I would also be unhappy because I would expect his most likely solution is to simply answer fewer questions and post less.  

Thus, my statement later in my post are a question of values of the forum-goers.  I ask of them "what do you value?", do you value the ability to collect a series of data, extrapolate it, and create a scenario which someone answering your questions might find unfavorable? Do you value finding contradictions, and do you find contradictions novel and unusual? Am I unfairly attributing to anyone by realizing that this whole thread revolves around a statement of intent by WotC which clearly is at odds with the reality of today?  Weather the question pertains to the potential of the gametable, the necessity of DDi, or the amount of correlation between DDi and the D&D 4e ruleset, it's clear the original quote, taken as is without any heed to what the OP or any of the people in these 5 pages were asking, creates a contrast to what we understand to be the "mission statement" of 4e today.  I have no interest in proving or disproving how accurate that quote fits into WotC's worldview.  My charge then is not that I don't care, but that it shouldn't be pinned to WotC. my implication is not that the thread as a whole is irrelevant, but that the main contrast illustrated by the old quote lacks worth as a measure of the quality of WotC's overall work.

Mark, you absolutely pegged me for falling into the common forum post traps that I myself discourage, and for that I apologize. Hopefully my second post sheds a better light on me without diluting my original points.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jun 17, 2009)

Speaking as someone who came late to the thread (like 20 minutes ago), as I read, I actually kept saying to myself, "That's not what he asked.  _That's_ not what he asked.  That's _still_ not what he asked."

It wasn't until Raven Crowking presented the question and requested a "yes or no" answer that I saw the actual question answered.  (And the answer seemed to back up the OP's POV, to me.)

Deliberate evasion?  Maybe not, but I was sure beginning to wonder.


----------



## Mark (Jun 17, 2009)

It's all good, Badwe.  I just hate to see a design question thread get as trampled, albeit unintentionally, as this one has been.  I find it intriguing to try to understand what is in the minds of the designers as core questions are considered and acted upon.  Contradictory sources tend to frustrate those aspirations, so I appreciate when the more straightforward questions seem to need to be asked to solicit clearer responses.  I am sure goals and plans evolve over time so I can also sympathize with the less than forthcoming answers.  However, in the asking and the answering there is still information to be gleaned, and so it can still be fruitful no matter the outcome.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 17, 2009)

Mark said:


> It's all good, Badwe.  I just hate to see a design question thread get as trampled, albeit unintentionally, as this one has been.  I find it intriguing to try to understand what is in the minds of the designers as core questions are considered and acted upon.  Contradictory sources tend to frustrate those aspirations, so I appreciate when the more straightforward questions seem to need to be asked to solicit clearer responses.  I am sure goals and plans evolve over time so I can also sympathize with the less than forthcoming answers.  However, in the asking and the answering there is still information to be gleaned, and so it can still be fruitful no matter the outcome.




Still, people exist who look for those "gotcha" quotes, and as a result of that we get legalese and companyese as responses. Don't blame the messenger, blame the vultures who prevent the designers from speaking frankly. I'm not saying WotC would be more honest if this wasn't the case, but the fact that people have this sort of hostility kind of ensures this sort of answer.


----------



## Badwe (Jun 17, 2009)

It's also worth noting that Mr. Rouse _is_ more of a public relations fellow (albeit a damn good and knowledgeable one) than a Dev. Specifically he's the Sr. Brand Manager.  This is not meant to discount him, but if anybody was going to give you a nuanced answer that consciously avoided anything that could damage the image of D&D, it would be him.

Not to sound like a broken record, but anyone who follows the "blue posts" on the WoW forums is no doubt familiar with this.  Their main dev who talks to people, Ghostcrawler, often has to qualify 90% of his posts because people get so upset about a stated goal which is later changed or not met, that they completely ignore the fact that "hey, you are getting to tap into something so cutting edge it's still under development" and screed all over the poor gin drinking crustacean.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that other people in this forum are familiar with the phenomenon.  

What's worse, the WoW forums are trash, pure unadultered trash.  They have to create "blue trackers" because a single blue post will generate so many pages of utter tripe in response that you need a special program to help you sift to what was meaningfully said.  In turn, blue posters realizing this will include quotes from the few meaningful nuggets they find because they know 95% of the audience isn't reading anything but their posts.

This thread has a meaningful exchange going on, so please don't take that to be me criticizing.  Mods like piratecat and crew are much more intelligent about putting a clamp on troubling posts rather than having a more hands off approach.  I'm just (hopefully) shedding light on why some of the posters like me sometimes come off as harsh towards the askers of slightly variant questions.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2009)

For the record, I also recall WotC (through one rep or another) specifically stating that the rules were being designed to be "computer game friendly." (My quotes there, not theirs.)

And I remember thinking, "Good idea."

But I also think Scott has MORE than adequately answered the question (in the negative) in this thread.

Which is interesting in itself: 

It was a stated design goal, and yet it apparently didn't happen.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 18, 2009)

Folks, let's be really clear. 

There's been some great discussion in this thread. There has also been both frustration and snide innuendo. Scott Rouse is a member here, and all of our normal rules apply; that means that our normal rules of comportment don't change one bit when discussing either Scott or his posts (or anyone else, either.) Don't insult people, don't accuse other people, and don't stray off target (even though the original question has been answered.) If you see problems cropping up, please report them with the little triangular "!" at the bottom left of any post.

Thanks.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 18, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Speaking as someone who came late to the thread (like 20 minutes ago), as I read, I actually kept saying to myself, "That's not what he asked.  _That's_ not what he asked.  That's _still_ not what he asked."
> 
> It wasn't until Raven Crowking presented the question and requested a "yes or no" answer that I saw the actual question answered.  (And the answer seemed to back up the OP's POV, to me.)
> 
> Deliberate evasion?  Maybe not, but I was sure beginning to wonder.




Ditto!


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> For the record, I also recall WotC (through one rep or another) specifically stating that the rules were being designed to be "computer game friendly." (My quotes there, not theirs.)
> 
> And I remember thinking, "Good idea."
> 
> ...




I wouldn't say that the design goal wasn't met.  Being friendly towards adaptation to a computer game is different from being designed to be a computer game, but on paper.

Shades of meaning, but I think that's crucial on this question and is why some state, "Rouse is being evasive" and others state "He answered the question on page 1, sheesh!"

I personally don't think 4e was designed as a computer game, or even that certain design choices were limited due to the simultaneous development of the D&D Insider applications.  But I do think that 4e should prove more friendly to computer game developers than any previous version of the rules were.

When the inevitable D&D game based on the 4e engine comes out, like all games before it, it will be a modified 4e.  But it will be less obvious and you only might realize it if you look under the hood.

Either way, can't say this design goal has failed until they actually release a computer game!  Time will tell.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2009)

For the record, please note that, when I asked, The Rouse answered the question directly and fairly, and I never suggested that he did not.  Moreover, while I asked for a Yes or No, The Rouse's answer was that he would say No, which is not a declaration of omniscence in the matter, but is still a clear and direct answer.

"I don't know, but I think......" is a clear and direct answer.  I have never suggested that it is not.  Indeed, as this thread demonstrates, when that was the answer I got, I accepted it.

Nor do I, for one, particularly care if 4e is designed based upon the DDI or not.  As I said to The Rouse upthread, I agree with him that it is questionable how many limitations doing so would actually cause.  

My interest in the matter began and ended with whether or not another poster was refusing the accept The Rouse's word after the question had already been answered.


RC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I wouldn't say that the design goal wasn't met.  Being friendly towards adaptation to a computer game is different from being designed to be a computer game, but on paper.




There's also "Being designed to be friendly to later adaptation as a computer game" which is what I inferred was the goal, and still think is a great idea.



> I personally don't think . . . that certain design choices were limited due to the simultaneous development of the D&D Insider applications.




I don't think it's any big deal to support the rules with DDI (except perhaps the Game Table). I'm talking out of my hat here, but supporting the PnP game with DDI mostly just calls for a big database. You're not actually _playing _anything-- it's a body of reference.

That's different (in my mind) from designing the rules so that they are easily translated to a _computer game_ that you can _play_. 

The character creation experience, the monster/encounter design experience, the rules reference experience-- none of these are the same as a play experience.

And IIRC, consumer feedback on the direction the DDI should take was strongly in favor of "reference work" and not "play experience."

Makes me sad. But I still have DDO. 



> But I do think that 4e should prove more friendly to computer game developers than any previous version of the rules were.




Since it wasn't designed that way, that would be a happy coincidence.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 18, 2009)

Badwe said:


> Next, and this is another one where subtlety was lost on me in my original post.  I in fact care very much about this thread.  To go back to my references from earlier, I care in the same way I care about any thread in which the devs of warcraft might respond.  Because Mr. Rouse, someone inside WotC, responded, I am very much interested in what he has to say.  *What he says gives me insight into what the future holds for a game I play.*




What Mr Rouse said on this thread gives me insight into *what the current game at this point *is about, as much as the rule books, designer blogs, and the two preview books WotC released itself do that.

I'm intensely interested in 4E's design goals because I am convinced, by long time experience, that understanding what a game sets out to accomplish is a high road to enjoying that game to a maximum degree- *provided *that a game has a clear enough vision of what it wants to accomplish and is designed well enough to achieve that vision. 4E is one of of those games; and that (in my mind) sets it apart from all previous incarnations of D&D which by contrast look as if designed to serve different (at times even conflicting) goals.

See, _some _RPGs I approach with a singularly mercenary attitude: "Here are my gaming preferences, what can I take from this (or that) game to serve them?" I will then take individual game elements into my overall game of choice, and move on. That, for instance, is how I'm planning to use _Pathfinder _- not as a package deal, but as a (hopefully rewarding) mine for 3.5 house rules. 

4E, by contrast, is very different for me and I enjoy it as such. I so far found 4E vastly more enjoyable by taking it as a package deal. 4E delivers when you accept _its _premises on what's fun in a game. The better you understand 4E the more you'll enjoy it. 

I could at this point draw an analogy to dating women, how some of them are more easy to get along if you adjust your priorities to _theirs_, and sometimes its better the other way round. But. I hope you (largely) get my point regardless.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 18, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Still, people exist who look for those "gotcha" quotes, and as a result of that we get legalese and companyese as responses. Don't blame the messenger, blame the vultures who prevent the designers from speaking frankly. I'm not saying WotC would be more honest if this wasn't the case, but the fact that people have this sort of hostility kind of ensures this sort of answer.



Clearly, this never happens.  Especially not this morning. 

-O


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 18, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Don't blame the messenger, *blame the vultures *who prevent the designers from speaking frankly.




Yes, that's how I rationalize the whole Greg Leeds interview, and his wise decision to (so far) not make good on his promise to EnWorld readers to return with a clear statement of _his _vision for D&D's future.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 18, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> Yes, that's how I rationalize the whole Greg Leeds interview, and his wise decision to (so far) not make good on his promise to EnWorld readers to return with a clear statement of _his _vision for D&D's future.



I'm glad you reminded me to follow up on that.

That being said, this thread doesn't seem to have anywhere to go but down, and the initial question has been answered. Closed it goes.


----------

