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

[Obryn]

Edited for Ninja Mod

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

No.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I really want to know is: When did The_Rouse stop beating his wife?

AFAICT, The Rouse is a gentleman, and I am certainly happy with the clear way in which he answered the question I put to him. If it seems as though I am implying otherwise, please accept my correction and my apologies to Scott. As I said upthread, I assume that The Rouse was simply confused as to what was actually being asked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Stop now, or you're both getting booted from the thread. We'd rather you avoid this sort of bickering.

And, of course, Piratecat is a gentleman as well.

 

[WalterKovacs]

EDIT: Nevermind

 

[Badwe]

Anyone who has ever worked in design/development of any kind, or even someone who has followed a game closely from the release of initial details, should be familiar with the effect that happens when the original vision of a product comes flying into a wall of reality. Things change, design documents are updated, project requirements are trimmed, and what you saw in your head might not line up perfectly with what ended up on the screen/page.

As the developers posting on the forums to world of warcraft can attest, a straight answer is just about the most dangerous thing you can ever post. Most people love straight answers, but a select few seem to enjoy misusing quotes, and the normal people who read those posts tend to get defensive at the prospect. Getting info from someone tied to the product, like Scott Rouse, is exciting because it's "inside info". When people percieve, weather valid or not, that such "inside info" might be put into jeapordy to prove a point, they might react unfavorably.

So, the elephant in the room is that it seems like there is a drive to get to say "SEE! SEE! you PROMISED to make a game table and now you're NOT. you LIED!" or possibly "the game is the way it is because of computers, and you want us to subscribe". Frankly neither of these suppositions are valid to me because i'm happy with 4e as is, regardless of some suggested prior intent. Also, Scott is a smart man and a PR guy, he's not going to give out any gotchas or ways for him to get strung by his own words. He gets PAID to be able to answer questions with minimal splash damage. Respect the man for his skill, respect the time he takes to talk to a bunch of forum-goers, and treat him with the same consideration you would for anyone who is trying to do their job with a genuine concern for both the quality of the product and happiness of the customers.

Frankly, I don't care what wizard's said in february 2008. I bet they said a lot of things that aren't true or don't reflect their state today. I also don't think they'll ever openly admit to it if they have a choice, they're a business. We've spent 5 pages discussing weather the 4e rules were influenced by this or that, but nobody has bothered to ask "Should we care?", because the answer is "no". Over a year into 4e, you have made up your mind on your stance on 4e, and answering this question isn't going to change your mind, so what does it matter?

 

[Piratecat]

Thank you.

 

[Jack Colby]

Virtual Tabletop issues aside, I distinctly recall WotC people saying that they designed the game so that it wouldn't need to have the rules altered when ported over to video games and the like, so it could remain "official D&D rules" no matter the medium or platform. This was at a convention before the game was released, maybe even at the Gen Con announcement of 4E. I don't believe it was an official comment, but may have been something the designers said in a fan interview or the like. I don't say that to make an accusation, just in the interest of being informed and taking things in context.

 

[Obryn]

I distinctly recall WotC people saying that they designed the game so that it wouldn't need to have the rules altered when ported over to video games and the like, so it could remain "official D&D rules" no matter the medium or platform.

And that might have been true at the time - at least as far as this person knew. I'm always skeptical of hearsay, though - people tend to read what they want into it. It doesn't mean it's still true, though - or that it even made it as far as the final, pre-publication rules of 4e. It might have been one of those things on the original design document that got immediately tossed out, for all we know.

On the subject of verbal statements and interviews... The thing with interviews is that they're much less reliable than people want them to be. (1) They're based on one person's possibly-flawed understanding; and (2) people mess up their words pretty often, mis-speak, overstate, and understate... so treating them as any kind of canon is always an iffy proposition. This is doubly true when the person who's speaking isn't in the business of talking to the public - like, say, a game designer. When you add context into the mix, it gets even worse.

I'd also like to say that I agree with everything in Badwe's post and thinks he made some great insights.

-O

 

[Mark]

Two things are repeated over and over on these boards.

(. . .) it seems like there is a drive to get to say "SEE! SEE! you PROMISED to make a game table and now you're NOT. you LIED!" or possibly "the game is the way it is because of computers, and you want us to subscribe".

The first is to please not attribute motives to other posters. Posters, publisher or otherwise, can choose not to answer questions if they like but it is always fair to ask a polite question if publishers, like myself or WotC or any size in between, choose to be a part of the community. What is unfair is to try to marginalize another community member by attributing less than favorable motives to them. You wouldn't like it if it were done to you, I wouldn't like it, and it's fair to say that no one likes it. As a community member, I ask you not to do that to me or other posters.

We've spent 5 pages discussing weather the 4e rules were influenced by this or that, but nobody has bothered to ask "Should we care?", because the answer is "no". Over a year into 4e, you have made up your mind on your stance on 4e, and answering this question isn't going to change your mind, so what does it matter?

A second thing repeated on these boards regularly is that if a subject doesn't interest you, ignore a thread and move on to another. Just because you do not care about a subject does not mean that others are somehow lesser for having an interest, whether that is polite discourse over game design, LARPing, one edition or another, etc. Posting in a thread to a subject that does not interest you to tell others that no one else cares or that the posters in the thread should not care amounts to threadcrapping and that is something I am asking you as a fellow community member to not do.


Thanks.