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

[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.

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Total cart before the horse, there.

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

[Aberzanzorax]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Aberzanzorax

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

...

This isn't gleemax

[Kamikaze Midget]

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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]

Maybe you were rememebering this? - http://games.slashdot.org/story/08/0...mera?art_pos=4

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

[Aberzanzorax]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tomBitonti

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]

Originally Posted by mach1.9pants

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]

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.

(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]

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

[AllisterH]

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]

Originally Posted by Aberzanzorax

by DrMrLordX:

Papa?