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

[WalterKovacs]

That's not what the interview says, though. The interview says that an important reason for changing the rules from 3.5 to 4e was to support computer use. If one reason to create the rules in the first place is to support computers, then that means that the computers are influencing the rules, not the other way around.

Simply, in my own opinion anyway:

3.5 rules, especially with classes like the fighter, the wizard, psionics, book of nine swords, etc ... basically, a number of different classes each following their own 'rules' meant that it would be VERY difficult to put that stuff into character building. Not to mention monster design stuff.

With new rules, ANY new rules, you can make sure you have consistency in character design which, in addition to other benefits, also works well with computer implementation.

Computer implementation is another reason (in addition to other reasons) that a new rule system is a good idea. A new system, integrated from the outset, is easier to pull off than a system that has been out for years that you THEN try to integrate afterwards.

There are some computer design-y stuff in the design of 4e. Classes and races, for example, follow a very object oriented approach with the 'abstract' class being something that gives you X HP, Y skills, powers at certain levels, etc ... While there is variation in implementation, the idea of what a class is, what a race is, etc ... has an abstract skeleton. This means that, for example, a new class added to the character builder shouldn't be too difficult. That means a new power source would be a lot easier to implement. Compare that to 3.5 psionics, or the stuff from book of nine swords or unearthed arcana, etc ...

Digital initiative integration is/was another reason to go with 3.5 over 4e, and it's something where the elements of simplicity, which help for balance issues, and making the game new player friendly, etc ... ALSO help the digital initiative. It also helps making more products to be sold, like the power cards (and the ability to put things like power cards into the minis).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree in principle that you could interpret that one quote like that. The Rouse has provided assurances that you're not interpreting it correctly, but you're not prepared to accept his word on that. What I don't understand is what your beef is exactly. You've spent several posts trying to snare WotC in some kind of trap... but what trap? That computers influenced the design of the game?

AFAICT, The Rouse has not actually provided assurances that the OP is incorrect, but rather provided assurances that 4e wasn't designed to be played exclusively on computer, or designed to require a computer, which are not what the OP said.

If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it. And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.

I recall when WotC announced 4e, after having indicated that there would be no new edition for some time, and people defending the company on the basis of "They didn't actually say....."

So what I'm saying now is, actually say. Yea or nay. The expected limitations of the ddi did/did not influence 4e rules design. Because the closest thing we have to The Rouse answering that question is

Yes we developed 4e with D&Di in mind, as a entire product offering.​

which suggests that the OP is correct.

At least we finally have confirmation that WotC has made the game more intrinsically tied to miniatures use, and that this ties into their business model. A point, I will add, that (when brought up here, at least) has tended to make some folks believe other folks were seeing things that weren't there.

Yes, I think it is pretty safe to say the 4e rules were designed with minis use in mind. With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work. This was a rules decision influenced by both a style of play that had come out of 3e and the business model that style of play created. WoTC didn't invent playing D&D with maps and minis but we certainly folded it more into the core that TSR had done.

RC

 

[wedgeski]

If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it. And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.

I wish you and Ycore would just state your problems with the 'digital influence' in a way we can actually talk about! Are you mad for some reason? Do you think 4E is worse for it? Do you think the new edition came too early because of it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wish you and Ycore would just state your problems with the 'digital influence' in a way we can actually talk about!

It is an error to assume that correct observation of a lack of real statement that there is not "digital influence" is the same as a problem with "digital influence".

If one wishes to play a game, it's influences hardly matter. If one does not wish to play a game, likewise. Influences are useful for discussing what makes a game the way it is, but are not really useful otherwise.

IMHO, at least.

What I do have a problem with is a sort of "X said Y, but you're not prepared to accept his word on that" when in fact X has not said Y, being used repeatedly for various topics in various threads.

I have a problem with a lack of straight answers. I have a problem with responses that are intended to seem like straight answers while avoiding the question. I have a problem with prevarication that is later defended with "Well, X didn't actually say Y" when earlier on it was certainly believed that X was saying Y, but in fact X was playing a game of dancing around answering the question.

That's something I have a big problem with.

And, AFAICT, it seems to be WotC's current policy toward just about any potential criticism of anything.

Are you mad for some reason?

Well, I am not particularly fond of the "He makes a point, therefore I will imply that he is emotionally destraught" sort of attack. However, apart from the ad hominem, I wouldn't say that I have anything in particular to be mad about.

Do you think 4E is worse for it?

If by "worse" you mean "not as much what I personally am looking for in a game", then, yes, I would say that the business decisions driving WotC have made a worse game than necessary. I would actually peg the minis aspect as the real culprit, though, rather than the DDI. Of secondary importance, I would say that the decision to go with the GSL has had a negative effect on the reverse continuity of 4e with previous editions.

Do you think the new edition came too early because of it?

Nope.

I think the timing was good for a new edition.

I'm not particularly happy about the "song-and-dance pretend-there-isn't-a-new-edition-in-the-works-but-don't-actually-say-it" that WotC peddled, and I am not particularly happy about the edition that we got. I'd really prefer that it was published under the OGL, but you can't have everything.

I understand some folks are very happy with the new edition, and that's cool. I think that there are some really good ideas in the new edition, and that's fantastic. I believe that the game design discussions that kicked off with the previews of the new edition were some of the best (most productive) threads on EN World (for me, at least), and that is really fantastic.

 

[xechnao]

If you can please point out where The Rouse actually said "Rules decisions in 4e were not influenced by the limitations of the ddi model" I'd like to see it. And if that is true, I'd like to see The Rouse say so, rather than this sort of indirect answering.

The rules are already limited by turn-based structure on a grid. I fail to see why the digital factor is so relevant as discussed in this thread here. The virtual table has not even launched. Mutants&Masterminds could use a digital application to help build characters too. If there is some kind of limitation this is the grid focused one, not the digital one. It is true that Wotc games are strict structures of limitations upon which a series of executables is run. M:tG being the best example, the executables being the individual cards. 3E is the same, character classes and their utilities from level 1 to 20 being the "executables". And 4e is the same too.

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

What's with the lawyer-speak? You haven't signed a contract with WotC so they owe you nothing. You're bringing up quotes from a promotional interview, not a congressional hearing.

In every interview Michael Bay says his next movie is going to be great, but you get a steaming turd in the end. Why can't Michael Bay be honest and tell us that Transformers 2 is just crap with explosions?

I'm sure that WotC did consider how difficult it would be to build a character builder for their new system. Just look at all the craziness the developers of PCgen have had to do to make a generator kinda-work for 3.5. It's a mess and forget about entering your own data unless you come from a programming background.

Maybe the conspiracy is that the game designers took what they learned building Magic: the Gathering and all their other design experience and applied it to DnD. It's easier to use and expand a system that's built on some sort of non-shifting standards. You experience this every day when you plug something into a wall outlet or drive a car.

So yeah, they thought about how they would store the game in a computer. Everyone uses computers for all sorts of things. If someone doesn't like the idea of computers and gaming maybe they should stop using a computer-based message board to give game designers a bad day.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

The OP asked a simple question. Why were 3D-distances nerfed in 4E? I haven't seen that question answered. Until then, I'm personally not willing to dismiss the hypothesis that one goal of doing that was to accomodate virtual gaming tables.

Speaking of quotes, here's another one. Pretty similar.



So here's the issue (bolded emphasis mine). What in 3E wasn't suitable for a complementary suite of digital tools (virtual tabletop included)? If your answer includes "unwieldy 3D distances in combat options" then the OP's point is correct. Bill here outright says that the d20 system had to be rebuilt to accomodate digital features.

Again reading so much more into it.

A) We knew we were approaching the need for 4e. 3e was getting long in the tooth and we were approaching what appears to be the natural end of an edition at 10 years. We were 8 on the 3.x era and although we could have limped along for another couple of years with 3.5 it was clear we were approaching the natural end.

B) We knew we wanted to do a suite of digital tools. Yes these could have been done for 3.5 but given development times and factoring in the impending need for 4e it made sense to do A & B together.

Developed independently we could have created a situation where we had a digital suite of tools that either would go through a major overhaul a couple years after launch (to support 4e) or would force us to stay in an edition to a potentially unhealthy (from both the business & gameplay) length of time (to amortize the dev costs over a longer time for the 3.5 version).

So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

well, bit off main topic, but I can say, after having forked out a lot of money for E-Tools (which was clunky and 3rd ed was really slow and tedious to build characters for), and now subscribing to DDi, that the 4thed character builder is superb, and the other stuff like the monster builder, makes my job as DM a hell of a lot easier.

So whatever their intentions, they get an A+ from me

(apart from the 4th ed Realms lacking character/charm, and the virtual tabletop not appearing which I desperately wanted as I'm partially housebound *cough, poke poke to WOTC ribs!!* )

 

[Raven Crowking]

The rules are already limited by turn-based structure on a grid. I fail to see why the digital factor is so relevant as discussed in this thread here.

It may not be. As I said, I think that the decision to push the grid/minis is the biggest factor. I'm not even sure whether or not the digital stuff is a factor.

What I am sure of is that the OP asked a question, which can be paraphrased as "Did the expected limitations of the ddi influence 4e rules design?" and that that question can be given a straight answer.

I only jumped into the fray because it was alleged that the OP had been given a straight answer, and had refused to accept The Rouse's word, which was patently false.

So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.

So, to be clear, are you saying that the expected limitations of the ddi did not influence 4e rules design? A "Yes" or "No" answer would be peachy.


RC

 

[Obryn]

So, to be clear, are you saying that the expected limitations of the ddi did not influence 4e rules design? A "Yes" or "No" answer would be peachy.

I think you've been watching too many cable TV pundits. "YES or NO!"

You want a simple answer, but maybe there's not one. I think Scott's been really clear and quite forthcoming over the course of the thread.

edit:

So yes from a business standpoint launching D&Di with 4e was the best decision (this is what Bill is alluding too) but this had little to no impact on rules choices. Those rules choices more likely came out what the R&D team wanted to see in the game system after years of playing 3e among other games and game systems.

-O