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

[catsclaw]

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]

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



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...



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.

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:
The "beneath the surface" answer is, "Because this edition is the most exciting and playable version of D&D that has ever been published." In order for Dungeons & Dragons to continue to thrive, it needs to retain current players while also attracting new players to the fold. Third Edition D&D succeeded wildly on both counts, and also brought thousands of lapsed D&D players back into the game (in some cases after years away from the tabletop). We have every expectation that Fourth Edition will repeat that success.

The fact that the Player's Handbook continues to be a strong-selling book years after its publication tells us that new players still enter the game every month. We also know from our RPGA programs that the game environment is full of diehard veterans from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, as well as new players trying out their first characters. But in order for us to continue to please existing players (whose preferences in gaming continue to evolve) and also attract new players (whose needs may be quite different from veteran gamers), the game must keep pace with an enormously volatile and variable marketplace.

D&D has always been a tabletop-based game, and Fourth Edition won't change that. However, we recognize that people think about games, information storage, and even social gatherings differently now than they did in 1974, and we want the new D&D to recognize and embrace those differences rather than risk becoming obsolete. So now you'll be able to access your rulebooks online via the Rules Database, craft the perfect look for your PC with the Character Visualizer, and even game with players across town or across the globe on the Digital Game Table.

 

[mach1.9pants]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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?