Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6206650" data-attributes="member: 6680772">No, not quite.  I think they expected these to be additive features.  I think they figured they could add these indie design elements without effecting traditional style play overmuch.  In a sense, I think they were expecting more modularity (if not perhaps thinking of that particular term at the time).  People who wanted a non-combat XP-earning Encounter could use Skill Challenges.  People who didn't need them would not.  People who wanted to could refluff their powers however they liked, but there was flavor text there for people who weren't into that.  You could keep all monsters at their listed level, or you could re-scale them to fit your needs (the Level 6 Ogre that becomes the Level 20 minion).  I've always thought this flexibility was exemplified by page 42.  You could, if you were inclined, keep all DCs static.  So the 1st level Wizard untrained in Thievery that tries to pick a lock finds it to be a hard DC, but by the time they are 16th level, it's easy.  Maybe he's picked up some magical knacks, maybe he picked up some tricks from the party rogue, without formal training.  You could also, if you found that unverisimilar, set that same lock at the Hard DC for the 16th level wizard, maintaining his inability to pick locks even as he gained levels.  It all depends on whether how you wanted to approach it.  (This design, does of course freeze out people who want a close mechanics-as-physics design, so that the lock's DC remains static, as well as the Wizard's Thievery skill, unless he puts ranks into it.)I'm not exactly sure why this ultimately didn't work.  Perhaps it was the tight integration of the game.  Perhaps it was presentation.  Perhaps it's just that typical bugaboo, the inevitable lack of high level playtesting.  For whatever reason, people who tried running 4e for traditional play often felt they were fighting the system.  But here's my thing.  Both Mearls and Cordell were involved in the design of 4e from a very early stage.  If they were freelancers, I'd say, yeah, maybe they didn't understand the system.  But they were in-house, they were part of 4e development and playtesting, and they were given the very prestigious job of writing its flagship adventure, the one that introduces the game to people, the one they sent out with the quick start rules.  I simply don't buy that both of them were so dense that they went through all that without an understanding of the game.  Even if they were, I don't buy that such an adventure would go through the publishing process without someone calling a flag on the play.  Sure, sure, if we expect the worst from corporate culture we can say such a thing is plausible.  But I think it's more likely that KotS represents what at least one method of play the designers intended to be possible.Another thing that is perhaps often forgotten is, remember the demo of the 3D virtual table that ultimately never got off the ground?  I think that's another reflection that WotC thought that dungeoncrawling would be a primary mode of play for 4e.  By no means does that mean that they didn't intend for it to incorporate indie design elements.  More like it wasn't until after release that they realized the dungeoncrawling aspects were not as effective as the more indie game-influenced style of play.**With the caveat that by indie game standards, 4e is still more D&D than indie game, I think.</blockquote>

Verification