Design Philosophy
Mourn said:
I crave mechanics too. But I also crave the design philosophy for those mechanics so I can have more context. I don't like to just see what a designer has done, but also the how and the why.
I'm also a big fan of game design philosophy. However, I don't think that I'll be picking up these books; I'm not certain that a substantial clarification of the design goals of 4E can be made without providing the concrete examples of game mechanics. Sure, empty expressions of enthusiasm and ancedotal tales of playtest thrills can fill a bunch of pages. Heck, they can make for entertaining reading as well. But they don't add value to my games.
Let me offer an example to elucidate this concern.
First, I'm interested in the mechanics behind resolving "social" challenges. The current 3.5 ruleset gives little support for social challenges. Either the situation is answered with a single skill check or the DM has to deal with the situation using narrative techniques of task delineation and determination. However, the D&D core rules offer no advice on implementing narrative technique; the DM must simply improvise the situation. Some DMs are happy with this style of arbitrary and flexible roleplay. Personally, I'm capable of running a narrativist encounter, but I'd rather have some robust mechanics. Therefore, I have an interest in reading about the 4E design philosophy of task resolution, as applied to diverse facets of gameplay beyond the typical challenges of dungeoneering.
So, I have just offered a "why" for altering the current system of social challenge resolution. What about the "how" of the game design? Here, we can get into the basic concepts of the design philosophy, such as the "gamist/narrativist/simulationist" criteria or the Robin Laws Player Type catagorization. But what value does that have in terms of making our games any better? How does pumping out a 1000 word essay saying that 4E social challenge will have cool and easy gamist mechanics which will offer enough guidance that even new DMs can handle dramatic social encounters with all the thrills of a cinematic combat scene, while eschewing tedious and intrusive simulationist complexities, so that player types as diverse as "tacticians" and "method actors" will be satisfied in actual play, but without offering any proof or substantiation to the claim, improve my game?
I could offer many other examples in which I have an interest, such as the turning mechanics, combat maneuvers, and creature creation/utilization. The "whys" behind redesigning these elements are easily explained, just take a glance through the Rules forum. The "hows" can only be meaningfully explained when given a concrete example by which we can judge the design.
In short, I feel that game design talk without examples of the results of such design is merely enthusiastic pablum. Some might find it a fun read. But I don't perceive any value that it might have for me and my games.
As always, YMMV. Good gaming!