Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4940490" data-attributes="member: 18280">Not even remotely.  You asserted that this is so, but you haven't shown anything AFAICT which actually supports that assertion.  My comment was related to the idea that the minor changes required to use 4e's ghost sound in a MMORG were somehow evidence of the same, when even a cursory glance would demonstrate that (1) the same problem would exist in any edition, and often it would be larger, (2) the same problem would exist for a greater number of spells in any other edition.My comment was also related to the idea that the changes required to work 4e's ghost sound into a MMORG were so great that it wouldn't be 4e, but the changes in 4e itself are not so great that it is still D&D.  What a great bloody sliding bar for standards!Examples of specific problems that you see?I don't know that I agree that "the more simulationist a RPG is, the EASIER it is to code" as I cannot think of any example of a CRPG that I would agree is "simulationist".I would also think that the "4e designed for MMORG" meme is compounded by the announcement that specific tools (electronic tabletop, for example) would exist that would include per force at least some of the coding required for the creation of a MMORG, by MMORG terminology in the rules (striker, etc.), and by the wording of the GSL, which strictly limits 3pp software production.  It is difficult to simultaneously accept that the online portion of the game will be a major part of the 4e experience, and yet that WotC would limit the online portion of the game by intentionally making the rules difficult to code.If you wanted to actually prove that 4e would be the worst (rather than the best) version of D&D to turn into a MMORG, you would need to provide specific examples of difficulties, and explain (rather than merely assert) why these would be more difficult than similar portions of previous editions to code.I don't have a stake in it either way.  I don't know whether you are right or not.  Honestly, I don't care if WotC wants to turn 4e into a MMORG -- I would be thinking along those lines, quite probably, if I was WotC because there is a lot of money there.  In fact, I would create a "world" where individual DMs could plug in their "modules" and online players could play with whatever DMs are online, keeping continuity of character over a very wide sandbox.  (Some of the TOS, unless now changed, made me think that WotC was going in that direction with the DI - specifically the term that the material a DM uploaded into the virtual tabletop would become forever usable by WotC without payment of royalties.)It still wouldn't change the main game into a MMORG, it would certainly promote interest in the game, and it would be a lot of fun.  It might even, eventually, allow people to professionally DM.  I would be happy to see such a setup.  It might even make me want to play 4e.But I still know that the "proof" of your position is lacking.RC</blockquote>

Verification