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

[Piratecat]

Folks, let's be really clear.

There's been some great discussion in this thread. There has also been both frustration and snide innuendo. Scott Rouse is a member here, and all of our normal rules apply; that means that our normal rules of comportment don't change one bit when discussing either Scott or his posts (or anyone else, either.) Don't insult people, don't accuse other people, and don't stray off target (even though the original question has been answered.) If you see problems cropping up, please report them with the little triangular "!" at the bottom left of any post.

Thanks.

 

[Shadeydm]

Speaking as someone who came late to the thread (like 20 minutes ago), as I read, I actually kept saying to myself, "That's not what he asked. That's not what he asked. That's still not what he asked."

It wasn't until Raven Crowking presented the question and requested a "yes or no" answer that I saw the actual question answered. (And the answer seemed to back up the OP's POV, to me.)

Deliberate evasion? Maybe not, but I was sure beginning to wonder.

Ditto!

 

[Dire Bare]

For the record, I also recall WotC (through one rep or another) specifically stating that the rules were being designed to be "computer game friendly." (My quotes there, not theirs.)

And I remember thinking, "Good idea."

But I also think Scott has MORE than adequately answered the question (in the negative) in this thread.

Which is interesting in itself:

It was a stated design goal, and yet it apparently didn't happen.

I wouldn't say that the design goal wasn't met. Being friendly towards adaptation to a computer game is different from being designed to be a computer game, but on paper.

Shades of meaning, but I think that's crucial on this question and is why some state, "Rouse is being evasive" and others state "He answered the question on page 1, sheesh!"

I personally don't think 4e was designed as a computer game, or even that certain design choices were limited due to the simultaneous development of the D&D Insider applications. But I do think that 4e should prove more friendly to computer game developers than any previous version of the rules were.

When the inevitable D&D game based on the 4e engine comes out, like all games before it, it will be a modified 4e. But it will be less obvious and you only might realize it if you look under the hood.

Either way, can't say this design goal has failed until they actually release a computer game! Time will tell.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For the record, please note that, when I asked, The Rouse answered the question directly and fairly, and I never suggested that he did not. Moreover, while I asked for a Yes or No, The Rouse's answer was that he would say No, which is not a declaration of omniscence in the matter, but is still a clear and direct answer.

"I don't know, but I think......" is a clear and direct answer. I have never suggested that it is not. Indeed, as this thread demonstrates, when that was the answer I got, I accepted it.

Nor do I, for one, particularly care if 4e is designed based upon the DDI or not. As I said to The Rouse upthread, I agree with him that it is questionable how many limitations doing so would actually cause.

My interest in the matter began and ended with whether or not another poster was refusing the accept The Rouse's word after the question had already been answered.


RC

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I wouldn't say that the design goal wasn't met. Being friendly towards adaptation to a computer game is different from being designed to be a computer game, but on paper.

There's also "Being designed to be friendly to later adaptation as a computer game" which is what I inferred was the goal, and still think is a great idea.

I personally don't think . . . that certain design choices were limited due to the simultaneous development of the D&D Insider applications.

I don't think it's any big deal to support the rules with DDI (except perhaps the Game Table). I'm talking out of my hat here, but supporting the PnP game with DDI mostly just calls for a big database. You're not actually playing anything-- it's a body of reference.

That's different (in my mind) from designing the rules so that they are easily translated to a computer game that you can play.

The character creation experience, the monster/encounter design experience, the rules reference experience-- none of these are the same as a play experience.

And IIRC, consumer feedback on the direction the DDI should take was strongly in favor of "reference work" and not "play experience."

Makes me sad. But I still have DDO.

But I do think that 4e should prove more friendly to computer game developers than any previous version of the rules were.

Since it wasn't designed that way, that would be a happy coincidence.

 

[Windjammer]

Next, and this is another one where subtlety was lost on me in my original post. I in fact care very much about this thread. To go back to my references from earlier, I care in the same way I care about any thread in which the devs of warcraft might respond. Because Mr. Rouse, someone inside WotC, responded, I am very much interested in what he has to say. What he says gives me insight into what the future holds for a game I play.

What Mr Rouse said on this thread gives me insight into what the current game at this point is about, as much as the rule books, designer blogs, and the two preview books WotC released itself do that.

I'm intensely interested in 4E's design goals because I am convinced, by long time experience, that understanding what a game sets out to accomplish is a high road to enjoying that game to a maximum degree- provided that a game has a clear enough vision of what it wants to accomplish and is designed well enough to achieve that vision. 4E is one of of those games; and that (in my mind) sets it apart from all previous incarnations of D&D which by contrast look as if designed to serve different (at times even conflicting) goals.

See, some RPGs I approach with a singularly mercenary attitude: "Here are my gaming preferences, what can I take from this (or that) game to serve them?" I will then take individual game elements into my overall game of choice, and move on. That, for instance, is how I'm planning to use Pathfinder - not as a package deal, but as a (hopefully rewarding) mine for 3.5 house rules.

4E, by contrast, is very different for me and I enjoy it as such. I so far found 4E vastly more enjoyable by taking it as a package deal. 4E delivers when you accept its premises on what's fun in a game. The better you understand 4E the more you'll enjoy it.

I could at this point draw an analogy to dating women, how some of them are more easy to get along if you adjust your priorities to theirs, and sometimes its better the other way round. But. I hope you (largely) get my point regardless.

 

[Obryn]

Still, people exist who look for those "gotcha" quotes, and as a result of that we get legalese and companyese as responses. Don't blame the messenger, blame the vultures who prevent the designers from speaking frankly. I'm not saying WotC would be more honest if this wasn't the case, but the fact that people have this sort of hostility kind of ensures this sort of answer.

Clearly, this never happens. Especially not this morning.

-O

 

[Windjammer]

Don't blame the messenger, blame the vultures who prevent the designers from speaking frankly.

Yes, that's how I rationalize the whole Greg Leeds interview, and his wise decision to (so far) not make good on his promise to EnWorld readers to return with a clear statement of his vision for D&D's future.

 

[Piratecat]

Yes, that's how I rationalize the whole Greg Leeds interview, and his wise decision to (so far) not make good on his promise to EnWorld readers to return with a clear statement of his vision for D&D's future.

I'm glad you reminded me to follow up on that.

That being said, this thread doesn't seem to have anywhere to go but down, and the initial question has been answered. Closed it goes.