WotC WotC blacklist. Discussion

[delericho]

My favourite method of estimating development time I have ever come across:
For each feature; Take a wild ass guess as to the time,
double it and add 20% contingency.
Then increase the time units to the next one up (minutes to hours, hours to days, etc) then add another 50% contingency and you will still overrun but not by as much.

My favourite fake law is Hofstadter's law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."

 

[Mannahnin]

I’d quibble a bit with the idea that 4e was designed around vtt play. It was designed around public play. You’d be able to RPGA style play as the baseline.

Of course that overlaps with vtt play quite a lot.

I think use in a VTT was pretty central to design. Which is part of why you get stuff like cubic fireballs and much more cleanly-parsed language in all the power descriptions. Everything was written to be easily implemented not just on a grid, but by a program. All the fiddly little auras and reactions and situational bonuses from feats also work better and are less cumbersome if you have automation tracking who's in range of what, and popping up to remind you of your off-turn abilities. If I never have to remember that I get a bonus to Opportunity Attacks from Combat Superiority if I'm a Fighter, or that I get a +2 bonus to AC when adjacent to two larger enemies because I have Lost in the Crowd, or whatever, those features don't feel so fiddly and don't take up cognitive load to remember.

I think 3E was the big organized play-focused edition, with its attempts to have a rule for everything, and to empower players and give strong guidelines and rules for inexperienced DMs. 4E's attempts to be super clear and simplified certainly serve the end of consistent adjudication as well, though.

I do remember them stating that they explicitly borrowed ideas from MMOs. The impression I got at the time was that they basically wanted an MMO that you could play at the dinner table or online. At the time, everyone wanted to be the next world of warcrack. Maybe it was a mistaken impression. Whether that that a worthy goal if true is a matter of opinion and preference.

This is the common exaggerated version. What the designer said was that they borrowed ideas from other games they enjoy, as does every edition, and that WoW was a massively popular game that some of the designers did enjoy, so naturally it contributed some inspiration.

A lot of folks leapt from that statement to the idea that 4E was trying to be an MMO, which was never stated or implied. What it WAS trying to be, was a way you could play D&D online with your friends, even if they had scattered around the country since your college glory days when you used to play all the time. In that regard, it was trying to compete with WoW/win back players from MMOs, rather than become one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think use in a VTT was pretty central to design. Which is part of why you get stuff like cubic fireballs and much more cleanly-parsed language in all the power descriptions. Everything was written to be easily implemented not just on a grid, but by a program. All the fiddly little auras and reactions and situational bonuses from feats also work better and are less cumbersome if you have automation tracking who's in range of what, and popping up to remind you of your off-turn abilities. If I never have to remember that I get a feat bonus to Opportunity Attacks from Combat Superiority if I'm a Fighter, or that I get a +2 bonus to AC when adjacent to two larger enemies because I have Lost in the Crowd, or whatever, those features don't feel so fiddly and don't take up cognitive load to remember.

I think 3E was the big organized play-focused edition, with its attempts to have a rule for everything, and to empower players and give strong guidelines and rules for inexperienced DMs. 4E's attempts to be super clear and simplified certainly serve the end of consistent adjudication as well, though.


This is the common exaggerated version. What the designer said was that they borrowed ideas from other games they enjoy, as does every edition, and that WoW was a massively popular game that some of the designers did enjoy, so naturally it contributed some inspiration.

A lot of folks leapt from that statement to the idea that 4E was trying to be an MMO, which was never stated or implied. What it WAS trying to be, was a way you could play D&D online with your friends, even if they had scattered around the country since your college glory days when you used to play all the time. In that regard, it was trying to compete with WoW/win back players from MMOs, rather than become one.

There's not much difference between a cubic fireball and a spherical fireball as far as a computer is concerned. On a computer you can easily dispense with a grid entirely, and just track actual distance, rather than relying on an abstraction.

IMO, cubic fireballs (et al) were clearly designed for ease of use on a real tabletop grid.

 

[Mannahnin]

There's not much difference between a cubic fireball and a spherical fireball as far as a computer is concerned. On a computer you can easily dispense with a grid entirely, and just track actual distance, rather than relying on an abstraction.

IMO, cubic fireballs (et al) were clearly designed for ease of use on a real tabletop grid.

I think they were both. One of the features shown on all the screenshots or mockups of the 3D VTT was that it was grid-based, though. I believe the intent was to continue the practice (from 3.5E) of combat, at least, being very grid-focused.

Obviously computers can handle actual distance too; WoW for example! But D&D was sticking to grids.

I wonder if doing so would have required less processing power, and thus potentially made the hardware requirements lower than an MMO? The images they shared in the press did also use 3D miniatures which were clearly renderings of several of the D&D prepainted miniatures which were sold from 2003-2011. If the idea was to use static miniatures in the VTT rather than fully animated characters, again, my thought was that this could reduce the needed processing power and make the VTT more accessible to RPGers with older and lower-end computers, rather than necessitating the better hardware commonly used by computer gamers.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Figuring out which squares on a grid is covered by a circle is no harder for a computer than figuring out if they're covered by a larger square. Square shapes are much easier for humans.

 

[Mannahnin]

Figuring out which squares on a grid is covered by a circle is no harder for a computer than figuring out if they're covered by a larger square. Square shapes are much easier for humans.

Forgive me if my computer knowledge is lacking, but is shape comparison as easy as just counting units? To adjudicate a burst or blast in 4E doesn't actually require drawing a circle or square or cube. Just counting spaces (squares) from the origin point.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think they were both. One of the features shown on all the screenshots or mockups of the 3D VTT was that it was grid-based, though. I believe the intent was to continue the practice (from 3.5E) of combat, at least, being very grid-focused.

Obviously computers can handle actual distance too; WoW for example! But D&D was sticking to grids.

I wonder if doing so would have required less processing power, and thus potentially made the hardware requirements lower than an MMO? The images they shared in the press did also use 3D miniatures which were clearly renderings of several of the D&D prepainted miniatures which were sold from 2003-2011. If the idea was to use static miniatures in the VTT rather than fully animated characters, again, my thought was that this could reduce the needed processing power and make the VTT more accessible to RPGers with older and lower-end computers, rather than necessitating the better hardware commonly used by computer gamers.

I doubt it. Remember that the OG Baldur's Gate used actual distances and was quite old by that time. Any PC or laptop from the time of 4e could have easily run BG (apart from issues relating to backwards compatibility).

Computers are much much better at tracking hundreds of little variables at the same time without error than humans are. Even older machines will put a human brain to shame.

I really think that cubic fireballs were designed to streamline TT play, and the VTT was designed to mimic that. Heck, my group still uses cubic fireballs whenever we use a grid for our 5e games. We don't like using spell templates (they tend to get misplaced), and it makes visualizing areas quick and easy.

Frankly, their heavy integration of reactions for 4e would have been a PITA for a fully automated VTT. Do players really want a pop-up (and to have to wait on that player) every time a reaction might possibly be triggered? I don't agree that 4e was designed to be optimal for VTTs, though they certainly did have the VTT on their radar.

 

[LordEntrails]

I wonder if doing so would have required less processing power, and thus potentially made the hardware requirements lower than an MMO? T

Yes. You can use much simpler math and therefore much less computing power.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes. You can use much simpler math and therefore much less computing power.

With a modern computer (or even smartphone) you would never notice the difference.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Forgive me if my computer knowledge is lacking, but is shape comparison as easy as just counting units? To adjudicate a burst or blast in 4E doesn't actually require drawing a circle or square or cube. Just counting spaces (squares) from the origin point.

Well, technically calculating the circle is a bit more complicated than calculating the square, but to a computer both are trivial.