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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I only started to get interested in D&D until 1997-8 and aside from one or two hour-long ventures, didn't even start gaming until 3rd edition was out. So I couldn't tell you the difference between the blue box versus the red box, etc. I just know a little bit of trivia about 1e. Forgive me.

The various D&D editions are incredibly confusing, especially with (not uncommon) confusion over terminology. Nothing to forgive.

In any case, yes, in OD&D and BD&D, dwarves, elves and hobbits/halflings had a race/class combo. This was loosened up a bit later on (dwarves could be clerics and the other races had what were essentially higher level prestige classes later on, like the Hin Master for halflings), but they came bundled together by default.

AD&D, from the very beginning, separated races and classes into different categories, although 1E and 2E made it very clear that not every choice was available to every race. (Strangely, the only class every race could progress in to unlimited levels was thief/rogue.)

3E is the first time that races and classes were fully decoupled and you could have a max level dwarf wizard, for instance.

 

[lukelightning]

Strangely, the only class every race could progress in to unlimited levels was thief/rogue.

This is why we humans distrust demi-humans. They are all a bunch of thieves.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

This is not accurate.

I have talked to many gamers outside of my group (just to one today as a matter of fact) and several are going on to other game systems merely because of DND complexity. They have a stack of DND books and they do not want to break it out for a game.

3.5 (and even 3E) is too bulky and too cumbersome precisely because WotC kept "just put out another book".

Nobody uses all of those books (unless they are totally home bound). They are mostly a waste of space.

And I suspect that recent sales have been decreasing instead of increasing (I cannot prove this other than word of mouth).

So, WotC needs a new influx of cash. Sure, they sell RPG books and novels, but they need more people to buy those. A new edition is the logical way to not only have many of the current 3E/3.5 gamers buy more books, but to also pull new players into the system.

Additionally, the entire DNDInsider concept is one designed for an influx of more cash.

Bottom line 4E motivation really is money for the company. Not necessarily for any given designer, but for the company. That does not mean that they cannot afford to do a great job, but that is the #1 motivating factor.

They can no longer afford to "just put out another book" and have a growing business model.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The statement "change for change's sake only" CAN'T be backed up by a solid argument, because that'd mean the one providing it would have to plausibly contradict all of the new designers in their reasons why the change is implemented...and so far, they have given a reason for every of their changes. Even if it's just "we think it will be more fun"...that is a reason. With any other "ordinary" gamer, it would be a house rule, and accepted or discarded by his fellow gamers...but with a designer team puzzling together a new edition, it's going to become canon. And we all know that house rules exist for one reason or another, and not simply just because "I like it different".

 

[delericho]

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

Okay, right away I hit a problem with this. As far as the mechanical changes, I don't have an issue with the changes they are making. There are several weaknesses in 3.5e, and fixing these means taking a long hard look at the system as a whole. So, things change. Fair enough.

Not all the changes are to my taste (e.g. Vancian magic going away), but I wouldn't argue that they are being made for no reason.

That said...

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”.

Okay, case in point: elves.

In BD&D (where I came in), elves were effectively a class, said class being a Fighter/Magic-User hybrid. In 2nd Edition (where I progressed), the default elf was what we would typically refer to as a High Elf. They were described as a powerful magical race, and were the only race to be permitted to cast spells in Elven Chain (a huge benefit for their Fighter/Mages). And, of course, in 3rd edition they had the favoured class of Wizard, and the default elf was again the High elf. In 2nd and 3rd Edition, other types of elves existed, but these were not the default as presented in the core.

Now, in 4th edition, the default elf has been changed to be what was once a Wood Elf (perhaps a Wild Elf). They are now described as a Ranger race, with what little flavour text has been supplied backing that re-interpretation.

Now, what is the rationale for the change? Where is the tangible benefit of making this change? I submit that there is none - a player who only used the 3.x core to run his Elf has just has his character vastly changed, and gains almost nothing from the change. (Indeed, to make the 'same' character in 4e, he may be best served in changing the character's race entirely, to Eladrin.)

That's what I mean by "change for change's sake" - unnecessary changes to the rules or (more commonly) the flavour text that change the way things have worked for years, and provide no noticable benefit.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

-snip elves-

Now, what is the rationale for the change?

New players are highly likely to associate "PC Elf" with "Legolas in the LotR movies." Legolas is a woodsy, bow-using, green-and-brown-wearing athletic ranger type.

The next most common association is probably with Warcraft elves, who are split between magic-addicted evil, or at least chaotic and sinister, spellcasters (and act nothing like Legolas) and purple-skinned, shape-changing, woodsy, bow-using, athletic ranger types (who look very little like Legolas). Catering to either one of these types would require NOT catering to the Legolas type.

Third would probably be LotR movie elves who aren't Legolas, who would be the closest popular category to existing D&D high elves - but who are not "PCs" in the movie.

Thus, WotC had to choose between keeping the existing fluff or aligning the fluff with what seemed likely to be the most common and approachable for new players. They chose the latter, for which I personally commend them.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Okay, case in point: elves.

In BD&D (where I came in), elves were effectively a class, said class being a Fighter/Magic-User hybrid. In 2nd Edition (where I progressed), the default elf was what we would typically refer to as a High Elf. They were described as a powerful magical race, and were the only race to be permitted to cast spells in Elven Chain (a huge benefit for their Fighter/Mages). And, of course, in 3rd edition they had the favoured class of Wizard, and the default elf was again the High elf. In 2nd and 3rd Edition, other types of elves existed, but these were not the default as presented in the core.

Now, in 4th edition, the default elf has been changed to be what was once a Wood Elf (perhaps a Wild Elf). They are now described as a Ranger race, with what little flavour text has been supplied backing that re-interpretation.

Now, what is the rationale for the change? Where is the tangible benefit of making this change? I submit that there is none - a player who only used the 3.x core to run his Elf has just has his character vastly changed, and gains almost nothing from the change. (Indeed, to make the 'same' character in 4e, he may be best served in changing the character's race entirely, to Eladrin.)

That's what I mean by "change for change's sake" - unnecessary changes to the rules or (more commonly) the flavour text that change the way things have worked for years, and provide no noticable benefit.

You neglected to mention, in your history of elves through the editions, that the 'high elves' that were the default assumption in 3.x have absolutely no advantages, as wizards, over other classes. Elves in 3.x make terrible wizards. They are much better as rangers or rogues. That seems very wood-elf to me...

With that (which you may or may not agree with, but which seems pretty evident to me), you could say that they are changing the fluff of the elf in 4th edition to be more in line with the way that the mechanics of the elf have evolved over the course of the game.

Later
silver

 

[Gundark]

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

No invitation to fight is intended. I was looking for a good theory as to why someone would think this way. I am quite willing to hear out someone's valid arguement, and weigh what they say.

For example one could argue that the change of certain demons to devils (or was it devils to demons?) constitutes a "change for the sake of change". However one could liken it to changes of spells from one school to another when 3.5 was released. The designers thought that spell x made more sense in school y.

 

[pawsplay]

It's not that I feel all the changes are just arbitrary. It's more a matter of, "This is what we want to do with X," it being predestined that X is changing. The reason X is changing? Someone put it on the block for 4e, since everything is fair game.

3e was explicitly a reboot, but it was a faithful re-envision. For 4e, they've apparently decided that it's okay to finally create something really new and call it D&D. Maybe it is time. But I don't know what such a thing is for. I already own several great books that are "not D&D" that I can run good fantasy games with. The essence of 3.5 was improvement on the game. Just about every way in which they retooled settings (more magic items in Greyhawk, mucking about with Realms material) caused some fairly stiff resistance; however much it might have theoretically improved play, it reduced value for people already invested in the setting. New mechanics, howevers, were basically always welcome as long as they worked. Prestige classes were a brilliant idea in that they were mandatory; by defalt, encouraged, but a DM could say, "No, that's not right for my game," without having to defend it much more strongly than that.

That's quite a bit different than, "That Fiendish Codex you just bought? It's now part of an alternate universe no longer in print. Greyhawk? Variant campaign setting with different core races." and so forth.

Somebody decided it was time to change the d&D experience rather than refine it. So be it. But I don't have to like it.

 

[pawsplay]

You neglected to mention, in your history of elves through the editions, that the 'high elves' that were the default assumption in 3.x have absolutely no advantages, as wizards, over other classes. Elves in 3.x make terrible wizards. They are much better as rangers or rogues. That seems very wood-elf to me...

With that (which you may or may not agree with, but which seems pretty evident to me), you could say that they are changing the fluff of the elf in 4th edition to be more in line with the way that the mechanics of the elf have evolved over the course of the game.

Later
silver

Or you could say an affinity for wizardry had nothing to do with having a bonus to intelligence or something, just as the stats for a half-orc don't immediately tell you whether they should favor fighter or barbarian, or halflings should be rogues or rangers.