Questions for the designers.

[Derren]

Personally I have many question for the designers to 4E about some changes and about the whole design process and I guess I am not the only one.
So I thought "Why not make a thread about it, maybe one of them will notice it and answer some of them?". I don't know how high the chance that a designers finds this thread is (I hope that the more respected members of this board can help with that *hint, hint*) but its better than nothing.

I'll likely repost it in WotC own board (as soon as it is up again). Feel free to repost it on other boards as well when you think that it will get attention there, just provide a link.

When you ask a question please stay polite and neutral. Don't attack the designer, the changes he made or 4E itself.
Also, remember that they might not be allowed to answer questions about certain mechanics or other things.


Here my questions:

• What is the reason for so many "fluff" changes like demons&devils, dragons and the planes?
• Are there any novels, movies, myths, etc. which serve as inspiration for 4E and if yes, which?
• Are there already any plans on how splatbooks for 4E will be integrated/balanced?

 

[The Little Raven]

I doubt you'll get many answers, since much of this stuff is covered by the preview books and they're still busy getting things finished before they send the MM and DMG off to typesetting. However, I'll answer some of this with the information provided by the preview books.

What is the reason for so many "fluff" changes like demons&devils, dragons and the planes?

The preview books state that they went over nearly every piece of D&D property (monsters, items, locations, gods, races) and examined what it does for an adventure game, then moved to eliminate needless symmetry (OMG have to have a type of elf for every single terrain!) and give each monster it's own specific place in the world, to make them more distinct when encountered. They wanted to draw on the 30 year history, and present things from it in a new way.

Are there any novels, movies, myths, etc. which serve as inspiration for 4E and if yes, which?

The only real mention of movies is the fact that Lord of the Rings was able to convey a lot about the world in the visual design of the movie, and with a similar, consistent design within D&D, they could make their art speak louder, without necessarily having to devote word-space to explaining certain things.

Are there already any plans on how splatbooks for 4E will be integrated/balanced?

No details on this. However, we do know that future PHBs will probably introduce new power sources (along with a couple classes for that power source), and it's reasonable to think that the splatbooks will flesh out existing power sources more (since we know that an Arcane book is one of the first ones).

 

[Derren]

I doubt you'll get many answers, since much of this stuff is covered by the preview books and they're still busy getting things finished before they send the MM and DMG off to typesetting. However, I'll answer some of this with the information provided by the preview books.

The preview books are a nice for general answers, but for more specific questions. I admit, I don't have them (currently out of stock) so my questions might be answered in there but someone who has them probably still has a lot of other questions.

The preview books state that they went over nearly every piece of D&D property (monsters, items, locations, gods, races) and examined what it does for an adventure game, then moved to eliminate needless symmetry (OMG have to have a type of elf for every single terrain!) and give each monster it's own specific place in the world, to make them more distinct when encountered. They wanted to draw on the 30 year history, and present things from it in a new way.

Yes, but take for example the dragons, specifically the replacement of bronze/brass with iron/adamantine. I don't see how this changes affects adventure design at all (as metallics are not automatically good they are valid encounters). Especially the removal of the bronze dragon confuses me as its habitat was unique (coast&ocean).
The only reason I see is that the background of dragons was changed in a way so that having "alloy dragons" wouldn't be possible anymore. I simply don't see the reason of this change as it is purely cosmetical/fluff related.

The only real mention of movies is the fact that Lord of the Rings was able to convey a lot about the world in the visual design of the movie, and with a similar, consistent design within D&D, they could make their art speak louder, without necessarily having to devote word-space to explaining certain things.

I don't expect that WotC will officially say that 4E was inspired by this and that. But every designer probably draws some inspiration from other fantasy media and I hoped some of them would share the names of this media with us.
For example many people think that this Dresden stuff (don't know the exact name) serves as an inspiration because there are a lot of similarities between the books and what we know so far (can't confirm that).

No details on this. However, we do know that future PHBs will probably introduce new power sources (along with a couple classes for that power source), and it's reasonable to think that the splatbooks will flesh out existing power sources more (since we know that an Arcane book is one of the first ones).

Yes, but are there already plans for playtests or guidelines for the authors? I know that, for example Magic (the TCG) has a matrix which says which power should cost how many mana etc. so that no one can design a broken card by accident.
For a RPG this would be of course much harder to implement. Still I would like to know if there is/will be a concrete mechanic to prevent/reduce power creep and accidental overpowered abilities as this was a big problem in 3E.

Edit:
And another question.
How will the balance between "general" and "specialized" characters be? I don't know how the 4E skill system will be but I assume that it will still be possible to increase on skill through training.
When you design monsters or NPCs, do you expect the PCs to be specialized (invested many things into a skill) or general (basic bonus with maybe a little extra)? Thats especially important for opposed rolls.

For example in 3E a rogue who put everything into hide could hide from any equal CR monster easily as their spot check was so low so that characters which are not specialized in hiding also had a chance to succeed. How will it be in 4E? Will normal characters still have a "good chance" to succeed while specialized characters will automatically pass or will general characters have a hard time to succeed and specialized characters will still have the danger of failing?

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes, but take for example the dragons, specifically the replacement of bronze/brass with iron/adamantine. I don't see how this changes affects adventure design at all (as metallics are not automatically good they are valid encounters). Especially the removal of the bronze dragon confuses me as its habitat was unique (coast&ocean).

They looked at dragons, and saw that most people couldn't really tell the difference between copper, bronze, and brass, since their coloration was all really close, and they didn't have a ton to differentiate them in terms of role in the game. So, they wanted a stronger separation visually (remember the big payoff from art telling half the story), mechanically, and thematically.

The only reason I see is that the background of dragons was changed in a way so that having "alloy dragons" wouldn't be possible anymore. I simply don't see the reason of this change as it is purely cosmetical/fluff related.

This is another reason. The other three dragons are base elements, while brass and bronze are the product of technology (and cosmetically similar in appearance). The move to iron and adamantine (a D&D-specific base element) kills two birds with one stone there.

I don't expect that WotC will officially say that 4E was inspired by this and that. But every designer probably draws some inspiration from other fantasy media and I hoped some of them would share the names of this media with us.

I'm guessing if you took a lot of the fantasy from the past couple decades, they'd all factor in to some extent. There's stuff from folklore, mythology, D&D's shared history and more, so it's really hard to tell where each influence ends and the next begins.

For example many people think that this Dresden stuff (don't know the exact name) serves as an inspiration because there are a lot of similarities between the books and what we know so far (can't confirm that).

Dresden Files. Great series, btw.

Well, it uses implements in a similar fashion, but only because that's been a staple of "wizardness" for a long time, and D&D was kinda the odd-man out by not taking it into account. As a classic fantasy trope, it fits very well, IMNSHO.

Yes, but are there already plans for playtests or guidelines for the authors? I know that, for example Magic (the TCG) has a matrix which says which power should cost how many mana etc. so that no one can design a broken card by accident.

For a RPG this would be of course much harder to implement. Still I would like to know if there is/will be a concrete mechanic to prevent/reduce power creep and accidental overpowered abilities as this was a big problem in 3E.

Can't help you there. That's definitely something they'd have to speak up about.

 

[Derren]

They looked at dragons, and saw that most people couldn't really tell the difference between copper, bronze, and brass, since their coloration was all really close, and they didn't have a ton to differentiate them in terms of role in the game. So, they wanted a stronger separation visually (remember the big payoff from art telling half the story), mechanically, and thematically.



This is another reason. The other three dragons are base elements, while brass and bronze are the product of technology (and cosmetically similar in appearance). The move to iron and adamantine (a D&D-specific base element) kills two birds with one stone there.

And neither of these things affect the gameplay at all. Don't forget that the art tend to be more than a simple color table. Brass and bronze dragons didn't really look the same and many people said that the bronze dragon looked greate or even that it were the best looking metallic. So I don't understand why the "art" should be a reason to change those dragons.
After all, how many people know which color adamantine has?

I also doubt that brass/bronze being an alloy annoyed many people except some hardcore geologists/chemicans. Unless dragons are now tied to minerals there was no reason for this change. And if they indeed are I ask why as this has absolutely no effect on gameplay and is just a change for the sake of changing something imo.

 

[The Little Raven]

And neither of these things affect the gameplay at all. Don't forget that the art tend to be more than a simple color table. Brass and bronze dragons didn't really look the same and many people said that the bronze dragon looked greate or even that it were the best looking metallic. So I don't understand why the "art" should be a reason to change those dragons.

Which breathes slow gas? Which one has wing flaps that run all the way to the tip of it's tail? Which one can cast weather control? Frankly, I don't really know the answer to any of those without guessing or double-checking my MM each time I need to know. A dragon expert would know, but most people aren't experts on the differences between copper, copper+tin, or copper+zinc dragons.

These questions are less likely to be answered correctly than "Which chromatic dragon has forward pointing horns?" (Black), "Which breathes fire?" (Red), "Which can cast wall of ice?" (White).

They wanted all the metallics to be as distinctly different from eachother in multiple respects, with unique characteristics that make more people appreciate their differences.

After all, how many people know which color adamantine has?

Well, since there will be only one "black metal" looking dragon, it'll be readily apparent, as opposed to the incredibly similar appearance of brass/bronze/copper.

I also doubt that brass/bronze being an alloy annoyed many people except some hardcore geologists/chemicans. Unless dragons are now tied to minerals there was no reason for this change. And if they ideed are I ask why as this has absolutely no effect on gameplay.

It bothered me, and I'm neither. You've got 3 base metal dragons, and 2 alloy derivatives of copper? Just seemed wonky to me.

But basically, to get more into why it's changing, you really do need to read the Wizard Presents books. There's far more discussion of why changes are occurring than any other source.

 

[Steely Dan]

[*]Are there already any plans on how splatbooks for 4E will be integrated/balanced?
[/list]

I have heard that they will release a Martial and Arcane power source splat-book, and an OA.

 

[Derren]

Which breathes slow gas? Which one has wing flaps that run all the way to the tip of it's tail? Which one can cast weather control? Frankly, I don't really know the answer to any of those without guessing or double-checking my MM each time I need to know. A dragon expert would know, but most people aren't experts on the differences between copper, copper+tin, or copper+zinc dragons.

These questions are less likely to be answered correctly than "Which chromatic dragon has forward pointing horns?" (Black), "Which breathes fire?" (Red), "Which can cast wall of ice?" (White).

They wanted all the metallics to be as distinctly different from eachother in multiple respects, with unique characteristics that make more people appreciate their differences.

Those questions are a bit unfair.
Which dragon can create illusions? The Red, Blue or Green one? This question is equally hard to answer for a non-dragon expert than the ones about metallics.
And thematically the metallics were extremly distinct (annoying chatters, pranksters and aquatic mercenaries/war lovers). Personally I think the fluff of the chromatics is less distinct that the one of 3E metallics.

And about WotC wanting to make all dragons more distinct. Which dragons has a large nose horn?

To steal a sentence I made in another topic: To me those fluff changes simply look arbitrary and unnecessary. If a "sacred cow" (or simply a tradition) doesn't bother anyone why change it? I slowly get the impression that the 4E designers want 4E to be radically different than all previous D&D editions for no clear reason and that is certainly not a good thing (at least for me).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Those questions are a bit unfair.
Which dragon can create illusions? The Red, Blue or Green one? This question is equally hard to answer for a non-dragon expert than the ones about metallics.
And thematically the metallics were extremly distinct (annoying chatters, pranksters and aquatic mercenaries/war lovers). Personally I think the fluff of the chromatics is less distinct that the one of 3E metallics.

And about WotC wanting to make all dragons more distinct. Which dragons has a large nose horn?

To steal a sentence I made in another topic: To me those fluff changes simply look arbitrary and unnecessary. If a "sacred cow" (or simply a tradition) doesn't bother anyone why change it?

I think it bothered at least the designers, because they are aware of the implications for playability/usability certain fluff aspects had.

And I can't agree with the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" - mentality. This kind of mentality doesn't lead to innovation. That's not saying that you shouldn't be careful, and need to weigh risks and benefits, but do you think the designers didn't do this?

 

[Dausuul]

To steal a sentence I made in another topic: To me those fluff changes simply look arbitrary and unnecessary. If a "sacred cow" (or simply a tradition) doesn't bother anyone why change it?

"Doesn't bother you" is not the same as "doesn't bother anyone."

I never used metallic dragons to start with, because a) I hate having color-coded dragons and b) I hate having nice friendly dragons. So the question never really arose in my games. But I can certainly see where the designers are coming from. If one is going to color-code dragons, it would be a good idea to pick distinct colors, which brass, bronze, and copper are not.

Were it up to me, I would do away with color-coding altogether and classify each dragon based on its defining traits. I'm a little disappointed that the designers' efforts to remove pointless parallelism didn't extend to the "five chromatic versus five metallic" aspect of dragondom. Still, it's easy enough to house-rule.