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

[(contact)]

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”.

I don't think any of the changes were made for change's sake. WotC is building 4e in a professional environment, and it just doesn't work that way. Every change has to go in front of the designer/developer's peers and stand tall.

We might disagree, dislike or disrespect a change, but none of them were made "for change's sake."

It's an empty accusation, as you well know.

 

[Morrus]

A third example of change for the sake of change before I bow out of this thread. This one isn't related to the 3e -> 4e switch, so should be less controversial:

In previous editions, Elves looked like Laurana. In the 3e PHB, we get Mialee. At a stroke, all the previous artwork is rendered inaccurate.

Why was that change made? Well, since it's just artwork, there is obviously no benefit to the game as a whole. And Mialee didn't look like any previous conception of what an elf 'should' look like. The people doing the art just felt like it.

There you go: change for the sake of change.

That one's too easy. Branding. Look & style. Differentiating 4th from 3rd. Making it feel fresh and new.

Branding is a very strong reason to do such a thing. It may not matter to you or me as a gamer, but it's a massively important factor in the survival of a product line.

What is highly amusing is that, by some peoples' definitions, there's no reason to get new artwork at all (well, there's no reason to make a new game: WotC, having published all the 3.5 books it can realisticallyprofit from, shoud do the right thing and roll over and die...) - just re-use the old art. Of course, we then cue the "WotC are ripping me off by selling me the same art twice!" waling and gnashing of teeth.

To a large extent, it doesn't matter what they do. People will be criticizing them for it, whatever. Change a lot of stuff and they're changing things for change's sake; change little, and they're ripping you off with a 3.75; don't release anything at all, and "3.5 is so full of crappy more-and-more specialized splatbooks - WotC haven't a clue what they're doing". There is no course of action which won't result in threads like this, or similar.

What they can - and should - do is do what they think will sell. And that's what they're doing, and it's all they can do.

 

[WayneLigon]

I think that "look at how people actually play the game" is somewhat skewed because I know they haven't looked at 99.99% of the games out there. They haven't even had a poll. Market research appears to be "how is it played in the office" and "how is it played at RPGA", neither of which probably represents how most people actually play the game.

And you know this how? There have been polls. The research they conducted with the 3E playtests was pretty massive, as well. They themselves have an entire marketing and research department that I bet doesn't get paid just to show up every day.

You had the last 4 of 5 campaigns with a monk? In the current campaign I'm running, there is a player that has taken about five levels of monk. He is the second person in almost 30 years to play that class in any game I've been involved it.

 

[KarinsDad]

And you know this how? There have been polls. The research they conducted with the 3E playtests was pretty massive, as well. They themselves have an entire marketing and research department that I bet doesn't get paid just to show up every day.

Yes. RPGA is the marketing arm of WotC. They focus the vast majority of their marketing efforts in RPGA.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Email is a pretty big thing these days. There has not been a single Email poll out to the entire group of people who signed up an account over at WotC. They have a database with probably over a million gamer Email accounts in it and have not taken a poll through it.

Why not?

Instead, they are making a bunch of changes and using RPGA as their litmus test. Hmmm.

You had the last 4 of 5 campaigns with a monk? In the current campaign I'm running, there is a player that has taken about five levels of monk. He is the second person in almost 30 years to play that class in any game I've been involved it.

Precisely.

Your group does not use Monks. Mine does. Where was the marketing poll to find this out?

.....

I'll wait.

 

[Rechan]

Out of our last 5 campaigns, 4 of them had a Monk and each time with a different player. It appears that they are removing the Monk from the 4E PHB.

The monk may very well get collapsed into the fighter.

At least, I hope there is a way to make an unarmed fighter. Because I dislike how every monk is the mystical quasi-magical kung fu master. I want my Hercules.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why do you assume that, because you weren't included, there was no marketing poll?

I have never once been asked anything by Levi Strauss, and I am sure they do some pretty intensive marketing surveys.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why do you assume that, because you weren't included, there was no marketing poll?

Where you asked?

Did you get a poll Email from WotC?

Have you seen a poll link on the WotC site?

I absolutely assume that WotC has had small polls and/or surveys in RPGA events, even though I am not an RPGA member. I do not know this for a fact, but it just makes sense.

However, RPGA is a small subset of DND players. They have this massive Email database, they have this web page, why no polls with them? Why no surveys?

 

[delericho]

That one's too easy. Branding.

While that covers the "dungeonpunk" aesthetic as a whole, it does not cover the changes to elves. Dwarves, gnomes, half-orcs and half-elves all look distinctly different from, and yet recognisably an evolution of, what has gone before. Elves and halflings clearly do not match that which has gone before.

Now, in the case of halflings, this is because they've replaced "hobbit" halflings with "kender" halflings, and with solid reason for doing so. The same does not apply to elves.

They could very well have taken an existing elven illustration, and "dungeonpunk"ed it, and had something that matched but was well-branded. Instead, they chose to go with something significantly different. There was no reason to do this, hence change for the sake of change.

And so absurd is it, that many of the recent Forgotten Realms novel covers do not match the elves of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting! Presumably, this is because the new style would either confuse or repulse potential customers.

 

[Celebrim]

Why do you assume that, because you weren't included, there was no marketing poll?

I have never once been asked anything by Levi Strauss, and I am sure they do some pretty intensive marketing surveys.

I have no idea what they did for a marketing survey.

I did note however that they seemed to imply that there would be faster leveling, and a poll at EnWorld showed that only 20% of the audience here favored that, and more than 40% disapproved.

Although I've no proof of any of it, I'm quite certain of the following things:

1) They've done some sort of research as to what the fanbase wants.
2) The fanbase doesn't agree on what it wants, and large blocks of it want contridictory things.
3) The design team has alot of other considerations that trump giving the fanbase what it wants. For example, they may have given more weight to the opinion of people in a target demographic who weren't customers than those that are. They may have as a design constraint meeting certain targets to make the rules set easily portable to a digital environment, which means that software developers might have more say over the rules set than the existing fanbase. And so forth. In brief, even if they know what the fanbase wants, they may feel that they have a legitimate interest in producing something else.
4) No matter what they choose to do, alot of people are going to be made unhappy by it.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A third example of change for the sake of change before I bow out of this thread. This one isn't related to the 3e -> 4e switch, so should be less controversial:

In previous editions, Elves looked like Laurana. In the 3e PHB, we get Mialee. At a stroke, all the previous artwork is rendered inaccurate.

Why was that change made? Well, since it's just artwork, there is obviously no benefit to the game as a whole. And Mialee didn't look like any previous conception of what an elf 'should' look like. The people doing the art just felt like it.

There you go: change for the sake of change.

I'm with you on the artwork change, but artwork isn't a rule.