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

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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]

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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]

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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:

Originally Posted by Original Question

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....

Originally Posted by You, post 52

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]

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:

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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.

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

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]

]

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

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

[Obryn]

Edited for Ninja Mod

[knifie_sp00nie]

No.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by knifie_sp00nie

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]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

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]

EDIT: Nevermind

[Badwe]

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]

Thank you.

[Jack Colby]

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]

Originally Posted by Jack Colby

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]

Two things are repeated over and over on these boards.

Originally Posted by Badwe

(. . .) 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.

Originally Posted by Badwe

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.