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

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Mark

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

(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]

Originally Posted by Mark

<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]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

(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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mark

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

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]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

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]

Originally Posted by Badwe

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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]

Originally Posted by Windjammer

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.