Sorry to break it to you, but I don't feel the same passion or enjoyment of the game from WotC game designers for 4E. When I read 4E, I see a passionless book focused mostly on mechanics and game balance. Story is secondary to game mechanics. This is the first edition of D&D I ever felt that with. I think 4E limits the game designers more than they have ever been limited in the past. Some of us gamers think D&D is modular and limiting to us? Must be a strange sort of dream and nightmare for the WotC game designers to finally be working on the game they've always loved, but not really.
Back in most editions game designers had a very open arena for design. They could make anything they wanted in whatever way they wanted and then test it. If it worked, it might be published. If it didn't, back to testing it. They could design spells based on text they had written, class abilities based on what something they read and felt would make a great class or PrC (for 3rd edition) for D&D, and they could do whatever they wanted for adventures, they would write up ideas for class powers and toss it in.
I would bet money 4E is more limiting on creativity on the game designers than any previous edition of D&D. It is the most restrictive on game design. I as a player looked at each paragon path and couldn't believe how utterly lacking in creativity each paragon path was. You generally had three abilities. One involved the spending of a hero point. The other two usually involved a utility power and an attack power. Each paragon path was designed in the exact same fashion as the other. Never have I seen that in D&D in 30 years.
I think a lot of the guys that have stuck around do love the game. Would love to keep D&D going strong for each generation. You don't get into game design unless you love it. I understand that. But being in the tiny creative box 4E placed the game designers in can't be all that enjoyable.
All game designers are creative by nature. They have to combine mechanics with story all the time. Now the mechanics are at the forefront,.Like if say Mike Mearls wants to design a paladin, it is very important he design it in a very modular fashion. Pick an archetype for it, make sure it has a marking ability, make sure it has powers that are either limited by weapon type or don't exceed the powers of any other starting class, stay completely within the confines of the D&D rule system regardless of whether he feels the archetype should have certain abilities to represent the feel of the archetype.
You make a Paladin at Paizo and you try to figure out what would make for a cool Paladin. The feel of the class is paramount. The game designers at Paizo are able to decide what a Holy Knight should be without first deciding what type it is (Controller or what not). They do not need to fit any particular Paragon path or epic path. They can make up a power completely in text and toss it on and it doesn't have to last only one round or be a save every round power or be used per encounter. They can make it anywhere from instantaneous to an hour per level or certain times per day whatever they come up with. Pathfinder game design is not without limits, but it is still the type of open-ended game design many of us have enjoyed from the game designers the past 30 years.
For WotC designers the modular rules of the archetype are paramount, the feel of the archetype secondary. And the reverse at Paizo, like it should be in a creative game.
Imagine spell design now for WotC game designers. You know each player is very limited in the number of spells they will ever have. So making new spells is almost a waste of time because they will never see much use unless they exactly match another type of spell that has certain capabilities. For example, in my 4E group every caster tried to get the spell that had an extended duration like Flaming Sphere. It became the new must have spell because it could do damage every round. No one shot Fireball because Scorching Blast did enough AoE to kill minions like a controller is supposed to do, but Fireball did less aggregate damage than Flaming Sphere beacuse it hit once and was done. Most creatures that aren't minions could easily survive it, so to keep damage every round Flaming Sphere and spells and effects like it became paramount so the wizard player wasn't forced to resort to his at wills every round.
Is that fun arcane casting? Wasn't as a player for myself used to the creative spell design of past editions where I had many, many choices as a spell caster to handle an encounter whether by damage, crowd control, guile, or the like. Spell designers could be sure that if they designed a good spell, it would see use by casters, added to a great many spell books, and enjoyed. The spell didn't even have to do damage to be effective. Now the natural limitation imposed upon casters severely limits spell design because most won't see the light of day. And 99% of combat spells cause damage in a damage focused game. No more creative use of non-damaging spells in combat because for the most part they don't exist.
That's a pretty small box for a game designer to be in. If anyone was shafted worse than the players, it was the 4E game designers. Not only did they probably receive less capitalization from the bean counters at Hasbro/WotC. But probably had strict orders to make the new edition of the rules MMORPG friendly because it is obvious the ultimate goal is to leverage D&D into the MMORPG market.
Smart marketing. I'd probably do the same thing. With the massive amount of background material, the smartest move Hasbro could make to leverage the D&D brand into a huge money maker is to hire some great MMORPG designers and let them take all the creative material built up over 30 years of D&D and turn it into the greatest MMORPG ever designed.
But we shall see how Hasbro/WotC does it. We'll see if that is the real intent of Hasbro/WotC or merely an assumption on my part. I think D&D will be an MMORPG in ten years with a limited pen and paper addition. But we shall see.
