Give me a competent arguement that WotC is "changing rules for the sake of change"

Gundark

Explorer

• Sep 20, 2007

• #1

Caveat: I’m mostly talking about mechanical changes. However I would argue that even some fluff changes are purposeful.

I've seen some critiques of 4e that argue something along the following, “I don’t have a problem with rule x. WotC is changing how rule x works, thus they are changing things for the sake of change”.

Assuming that the entire gaming population is like you is IMHO faulty thinking. I have never found Attacks of Opportunity to be a difficult rule, however a lot of gamers obviously did. IMHO rule changes that make the game easier to run are a good thing.
Honestly without seeing the hows and whys of the mechanics, I haven’t seen any reasonable evidence that WotC are “changing things for the sake of change”.

Give me a good argument to change my mind

 

log in or register to remove this ad

R

Rechan

Adventurer

• Sep 20, 2007

• #2

I have nothing to contribute aside from thanking Gundark for making this thread.

 

G

gothmaugCC

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #3

Thats really easy actually.


Money


A ruleset change makes all previous work obsolete, and allows them to rework/rehash/resell all the products of the last 5 years. Its good sound business practice, and lest us forget, WoTC is a business and has salaries to pay. I know we'd all love to be independantly wealthy and print our own gaming system for pure sh*ts and grins, but thats not reality. A healthy functioning business structure is. So yes, WoTC has changed the rules for the sake of change.

Think about the other side, they can Update and rehash, or cancel the brand line. I'd rather see 4th edition DND than no DnD at all.......

 

Roger

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #4

gothmaugCC said:

Money

Click to expand...

Clearly if they're changing rules for the sake of money, they're not changing rules for the sake of change.



Cheers,
Roger

 

Gundark

Explorer

• Sep 20, 2007

• #5

gothmaugCC said:

Thats really easy actually.


Money

Click to expand...

edit. Roger beat me to it

 

lukelightning

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #6

Roger said:

Clearly if they're changing rules for the sake of money, they're not changing rules for the sake of change.

Click to expand...

If they are getting paid in odd nickels and dimes they are changing for change.

 

Sir Brennen

Legend

• Sep 20, 2007

• #7

Some obvious truth to the idea that a business needs to make money, but it lends no weight to the argument that the changes are arbitrary, without purpose or that the designers don't care about improving the game while they sell us new books.

Try again.

 

Deset Gled

.

• Sep 20, 2007

• #8

gothmaugCC said:

Thats really easy actually.


Money

Click to expand...

I think you might have missed the purpose of the thread. Of course one of the reasons for a new addition is money. But can you prove that money is the only reason behind the changes? Can you show one specific rule change that adds nothing to the game, does not make things simpler in any way, or does not make things more realistic, or does not make the game more balanced, fun, intuitive, etc? Basically, if you're one of those people who says that money is the only reason behind the change, can you give examples of changes that serve no purpose?

I can't come up with any examples. Then again, I don't have a very good list of rules that have actually changed.

Edit: Gah, everyone beat me too it.

 

G

gothmaugCC

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #9

Ahhh I misread the intent of the original post. So esentially its being said that the changes to the ruleset of the game are trite and arbitrary, without rhyme or reason?

Hmm I'll have to think about that one for a bit.

 

Roger

First Post

• Sep 20, 2007

• #10

This is a bit of a hypothetical line of discussion at this point, but some evidence for it might pop up.

When the change from 3.0 to 3.5 happened, I personally think (although I can't actually prove that anyone who matters in WotC also thinks this) that some of the most problematic changes were the smallest changes.

They were the ones that made me think twice, made me question my memory about which was the old way and which was the new. If those changes had been more severe, I think it would have made my life easier.

Now, if we can show that some WotC people reached similar conclusions, and applied them to 4.0, and that this would be a valid example of change for change's sake, then I think we might have something.

Anyway, I think that's one line of argument. It's obviously still pretty shaky at this point.


Cheers,
Roger