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

[Aberzanzorax]

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]

Originally Posted by Aberzanzorax

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.

from here: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl.../02/18/1459259

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

Originally Posted by Aberzanzorax

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.

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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.

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

Originally Posted by Festivus

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" .

[Kamikaze Midget]

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

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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....

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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



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)?

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.

[Kamikaze Midget]

Originally Posted by Scott Rouse

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.

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

[quote=Kamikaze Midget;4828112]

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!)

The OP asked about computer use but to your question. 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.

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 don't think so. Those design decisions were made for ease of use in books. We wanted to get away from the text book feel some books had with massive multi-page stat blocks.

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.

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.

I guess you'll feel you are missing out as much as you may have felt in 3e if you didn't subscribe to the magazines, or play in RPGA to get campaign cards, etc. In the long run, I think the hard core 4e player (the one who who feels compelled to post on ENworld or own every book) will likely subscribe because it will be part of the game and playing culture of your peers.

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!

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

[Kamikaze Midget]

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Warrior Stallions!

Oh no! It's charlie the warrior stallion!

YouTube - Charlie The Unicorn

YouTube - Charlie the Unicorn 2

YouTube - Charlie the Unicorn 3

[thecasualoblivion]

Candy Mountain!! An Adventure!!!

[Ycore Rixle]

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

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle

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.