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

[Aberzanzorax]

You are right, of course...flight is a poor example.


I was mostly making a point to someone in that original thread, and I didn't have the info to back it up.


I guess the point is, though, that it's weird that they built the 4e system to work with the online suite of tools, but that the tools don't all exist. In fact, they stated that the real impetus behind producing a new system at all was a combo of releasing it along with the online tools and improving on things they didn't like in 3e.

 

[Mistwell]

For those curious, I finally found that quote (and now no longer feel so confused and befuddled).

Here is what I was talking about:

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. http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/1459259

from here: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/1459259

It seems to me you are reading more into that quote than is actually intended. There were hundreds of reasons given here and there for 4e, and that is just one of the reasons.

Given they still don't even have much of the digital component of the system, and had no way of knowing what that digital component would some day be able to accomplish, it's hard to claim that the rules were written with the restrictions of an online component in mind.

Let's take your flying example. First, there are plenty of flying creatures in 4e. Second, software can handle three dimensional representations pretty well, and they had no reason to believe the software would not be able to handle such things. Finally, focusing on a battle mat is not necessary for software. Indeed, in our experience with Klooge Werks during 3.0 and 3.5, we found that software can help free you from battle map concepts such as squares. You can move exactly where you want to using software, rather than firmly in the middle of a particular square.

So, I am just not seeing it as a major motivational factor for 4e, or a justification for any rules or lack of rules in 4e.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.

Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.

Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.

Hard to argue with this. No one in our group has DDI access and we continue to play just fine somehow.

 

[Mark]

I made a claim in a thread on gleemax that someone from WotC had said they designed 4e with the suite of online tools in mind...i.e. they knew that the online tools would have limitations and a particular focus, and they designed the system with attention to excluding those limitations and addressing that focus.

The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.

Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer. D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.

I'm not following quite how the two cannot both be the case. Are you saying, Scott, that the new rules were not designed knowing that there would be online tools and that certain considerations toward that end did not needed to be taken into consideration? While we're on the subject, btw, was it not also a legal consideration that someone not simply be able to replicate similar and supplemental rules under the OGL, and thus some steps taking in the design of the system and use of naming conventions to avoid that possibility down the road? Thanks in advance for your candor.

 

[gizmo33]

The answer to question pondered by the OP seems really simple.

Ask yourself can you play D&D 4e with out D&D Insider? If you answer yes, then you have the answer.

The answer to the OPs question IMO could be answered in a more straightforward fashion by a designer simply stating their intent. Gizmo's opinion about what he has or has not been able to accomplish so far in the game (and with what tools) IMO seems less relevant.

It's possible that the set of powers in the game are designed to be a subset of powers that are playable both at the table top, and capable of being modeled by software. The influence that software is having on the design, in this case, would not be answered by your question.

D&D Insider compliments 4e play and adds to it but is not integral to actually playing a 4e D&D game. D&D Insider is dependent on 4e not the other way around.

If 90% of the designers are using software for some aspect of the game (ex. encounter design) then IMO that would be relevant to the OP. IMO it would also be useful for the designers to recognize this fact in order to minimize discrepancies between their expectations and the audience's.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

In early 2006 we were discussing 4e and some prototype designs were in being kicked around. At the same time were also discussing a desire to have electronic tools that were integrated with the D&D rules/system. Things like a character builder, game table, editorial, etc were part of the early vision for D&D Insider.

With a new edition in development and plans moving forward to develop D&D Insider it only made sense that they all work around 4e. So although they were made to work together 4e was not designed to play requiring a computer.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In early 2006 we were discussing 4e and some prototype designs were in being kicked around. At the same time were also discussing a desire to have electronic tools that were integrated with the D&D rules/system. Things like a character builder, game table, editorial, etc were part of the early vision for D&D Insider.

With a new edition in development and plans moving forward to develop D&D Insider it only made sense that they all work around 4e. So although they were made to work together but 4e was not designed to play requiring a computer

As a 4E/D&D Insider fan playing devils advocate:

I think the question they are trying to pose is was 4E designed to avoid mechanics that wouldn't translate well to being played on the computer. Flight isn't a good example, but how about the 3.5E Silent/Minor/Major Image(AD&D's Phantasmal Force) spells? Open ended things that can do a rather undefined anything, for example.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

As a 4E/D&D Insider fan playing devils advocate:

I think the question they are trying to pose is was 4E designed to avoid mechanics that wouldn't translate well to being played on the computer. Flight isn't a good example, but how about the 3.5E Silent/Minor/Major Image(AD&D's Phantasmal Force) spells? Open ended things that can do a rather undefined anything, for example.

The simple answer is no 4e was not designed to play easier on a computer.

I think that the premise that computer play has design constraints is somewhat flawed to begin with. How has table top play handled flight, invisibility, teleport, line of sight, concealment, on-going fire, bloodied, etc in any sort of elegant fashion? It hasn't been done well with any physical product (tokens, templates, markers, etc). Imagination is the only kluge that has made any of these rules work well. If anything I think it is easier to design mechanics to play well on a computer because you can largely ignore physical effects like gravity and playing with inanimate avatars.

As for open ended rules as mentioned above. I would suspect those were avoided in 4e because these are often the most unbalanced/broken rules.

 

[Festivus]

In early 2006 we were discussing 4e and some prototype designs were in being kicked around. At the same time were also discussing a desire to have electronic tools that were integrated with the D&D rules/system. Things like a character builder, game table, editorial, etc were part of the early vision for D&D Insider.

With a new edition in development and plans moving forward to develop D&D Insider it only made sense that they all work around 4e. So although they were made to work together 4e was not designed to play requiring a computer.

And just to point it out, as painful as it might be to you Scott, those tools weren't even available at launch nor for several months and the game ran just fine for us. Proof that you don't need a computer to play 4E