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

[Gentlegamer]

I don't know . . . I think this thread is really just asking for a fight.

 

[JamesM]

The problem with answering a question like this is twofold.

1. At this stage, we know neither the full scope of all the rules changes in 4E nor what motivated the designers to make the changes they did.

2. More importantly, any time someone might reasonably say, "Rule X or concept Y was changed simply for the sake of change," someone else might reasonably reply, "No, they did it so that the game plays faster/is easier to learn/is more consistent." Short of a designer coming out and saying, "Actually, we just did that because we felt like it," there's no way to counter such an argument.

The truth of the matter is that, when dealing with a creative property produced by a business, there is no such thing as a simple explanation for any decision. I am sure that almost every change we'll see in 4E will be the result of a complex series of factors, from simple economics to notions of building a better mousetrap to even, yes, a creative itch a designer had to remake D&D in his own image, if only in a small way.

So, this thread will only end in tears.

 

[Celebrim]

First, before we can even have this discussion, you'd have to stop treating the claim like a straw man. If you don't want to read what other people say according to the principle of charitably interpreting what they say in the strongest possible light, don't be surprised if what they are saying never makes any sense to you. They have a responcibility to be clear about what they mean, but you have a responcibility not to willfully misconstrue thier meaning.

Willfully misconstruing someone's meaning by twisting thier words or taking them too literally is not nearly the strong argument some people here seem to think it is.

The phrase 'change for change's sake' doesn't imply that there is no reason at all for the change, because obviously even, 'Because they want to' is still a reason. Rather it implies that there is no pressing reason for making the change compared to the effort and cost of making the change, or indeed that the real reason comes down to simply 'because they want to' or some similar whim. Generally, if something has worked for a long period and there is no obvious tangible benefit to making the change, then it is considered fair to claim that it is nothing more than 'change for change's sake'. Putting out a new product for financial reasons is a plausible motive for 'change for change's sake'. I'm not necessarily in agreement that it is the motive here, but it is certainly a possibility.

Frankly, I think that this discussion is going to run into a wall very quickly because of the problem of defining what is an 'obvious tangible benefit'. The problem is that people of a more conservative mindset tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with those that want to make the change. That is, before a change is justified, you have to prove that the change will result in an obvious improvement. People with a more liberal mindset tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with those that don't want to make the change. That is, they believe that you must demonstrate that the current system will clearly perform better than the proposed change and indeed typically believe that if you can show that there is any problem at all with the current system that some sort of change is obviously justified. These two different view points are going to clash dramatically over what consitutes 'obvious tangible benefit' and how you'd go about proving it exists.

For example, if someone doesn't find AoO problimatic and if he is either naturally conservative in his views or his lack of problems with AoO's has tended to make him conservative in his thinking about them, then he will tend to see the argument that 'other people have a problem with AoO' as demonstrating something about other people but nothing about the AoO rules. Thus, the two sides will almost certainly talk right past each other. The conservative will tend to say, "Demonstrate to me that the new rules will be better.", where as the liberal will tend to say, "Demonstrate to me that the old rules can't be improved." Neither side really cares about the question that the other side is asking.

 

[WayneLigon]

Thats really easy actually. Money

I guess it can't ever be because the rules need changing. They have learned a great deal in the last seven years, and people are always thinking of new and better ways of doing things.

And they do need changing.

When you learn new and better ways of doing things, you then begin to implement those changes. When you have several new ways of doing things that are so imcompatable with a previous way of doing them, but they are nonetheless better, then you do a new edition.

If money was the only thing, they could easily continue to put out a Monster Manual, an adventure, a Realms sourcebook of some type, a rules heavy book, a themed book on a monster type, etc and repeat that every six months for the next three or four years before they exhausted - really exhaused - the potential subjects they could cover.

Really, the level of cynicism I see sometimes just sickens me.

 

[Rechan]

I don't know . . . I think this thread is really just asking for a fight.

Or asking people to support a talking point with fact and logic.

 

[Celebrim]

Or asking people to support a talking point with fact and logic.

Believing that would require me to have some evidence that people really wanted to have thier minds changed, that they wanted to listen reasonably and respectfully to alternative opinions, and that they really valued what people of opposing viewpoints had to say.

I don't see alot of evidence of that given the tone.

 

[Rechan]

Believing that would require me to have some evidence that people really wanted to have thier minds changed, that they wanted to listen reasonably and respectfully to alternative opinions, and that they really valued what people of opposing viewpoints had to say.

I don't see alot of evidence of that given the tone.

One doesn't need to be willing to change their opinion if they want to see the other side back up their statements with reason and a good argument. This is a matter of "Present your case."

For instance an official debate isn't "I'm trying to convince the other guy he's wrong"; it's "I'm trying to prove I'm right or my stance is better to the audience".

I argue a lot of politics. But even if I strongly disagree with the other side's stance, and I know that I will never take the other side's stance, I still want to see them back up their stance with an argument beyond "I say so". Because I want to discuss with an ounce of intelligence and civility.

 

[pawsplay]

Some ways I can consider the game to be changing for change's sake:

Points of light... an interesting concept, that creates adventuring possibilities for the PCs. Apparently, the elemental planes are being reinvisioned, to also provide adventuring possibilites for the PCs. If the points of light concept means plenty of opportunities for adventure, why can't the planes be used as an exotic backdrop?

The Greyhawk gods are being replaced by Greek gods and similar recognizable characters. And yet, Asmodeus is also becoming a deity for no freakin' reason.

Gnomes are being eliminated as having no specific role. And... tieflings... are being added.... to fulfill some kind of unmet role? What archetype are tieflings supposed to be?

Attack of opportunity are going away. Except, oh wait, they're not, they're just being cleverely disguised, SWSE style.

I don't think the choices are completely arbitrary... I think it's just evident the designers feel 4e gives them license to change things to how they think things might be, instead of something recognizable and appealing to previous generations of player. "I'm in charge of D&D.... you know what would be awesome?...." But not everything that is Awesome should be D&D.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I don't know . . . I think this thread is really just asking for a fight.

Yeah, probably. Believers that the designers have a game plan already have tons of articles, blogs and posts to point to with statements made by WotC staff regarding their reasons for the 4E changes and how they're going to make the game better.

You won't find any statements made by the designers to the effect of "we're making this here change, and it will probably cause this particular aspect of the game to suck."

Any tidbits of mechanical updates which a naysayer will point to will then be defended and debated as to whether it actually constitutes a real change with a purpose. This then becomes basically an exercise in reading the minds of the designers if there are no explanations posted by them so far, or calling them liars if there have been.

Edit: Also note that lack of a current documented reasons does not constitute absence of such reasons. And given how little we currently know about 4E, this renders the question as to whether certain changes are indeed merely for changes sake unanswerable.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Or asking people to support a talking point with fact and logic.

I think the tenor of your response kinda proves me right.