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

[Flobby]

At the risk of repeating things just gotta say this...

I really don't get the whole "4E for money" argument. First of all they HAVE to make books for money! Otherwise they would go out of business and couldn't make any more books at all! And if any of the WoC team was just a bunch of money grabers and not roleplaying geeks like the rest of us, do you really think they'd be in the RPG business? I'm sure they're doing alright but they're not rich. So I can't imagine money to be the only factor, or even the main one, in creating 4E.

As far as the "changes for changes sake" argument, in a way it maybe partly true. I'm sure many of you have created something before, whether it be an RPG or whatever, or at least created a homebrew version of an RPG. Anyone who has created anything knows that your creation is rarely finished. You're always looking back at it thinking-- I shouldn't have done that, or, It's not ready, etc.. In a way this applies to other peoples creations too. Thats what a homebrew is isn't it? You make changes because you would have done it differently. And that's all that's going on in 4E. The creators love the game and are creative people, and there in the business cause they want to write RPGs! Not just hash out the same stuff but want to experiment, as well as fix whats broken-- so in that sense they maybe changing somethings for changes sake but that doesn't make it arbitrary. And I for one comptletly support it.
ANY genre in any art dies without some experimentation-- it becomes something to collect or observe in musuems.

 

[Wanderer20]

You have to be more precise about the statement "changing for the sake of change" as it could be translated into, pick one:

-They are changing for the sake of change because that will make them sell a brand new edition -aka, they are changing for Money; laugh or cry, tell it's because they are evil or they a company who needs to sell, the reason remains Money-

-They are changing for the sake of change because they are chaotic-oriented and their alignment in RL makes them change the world around, sometime (of course it's a rather hard chance to be Truth).

-They are changing for the sake of change because the current rules can be improved and improvement can bring a more enjoyable and successful game "Hey, we are WotC, improving is our job".

The first one has been throughly explained from one of the first reply in this post.

The second one is obviously a joke.

The third one? Well I'll believe it when I'll see it. I am familiar with both 3.5 and SWSE -not to mention ToB- and I think going towards the SWSE is not the road to an improvement in terms of easiness of combat, reliance from items, realistic OR simple skill system; and what the developers showed us is the evidence the system is going in that direction; in short, not to a more enjoyable OR easy-to-play game; even shorter? BS.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Making the change thus does not a thing to make the game better. And the source material for D&D is, or at least should be, wider than "what is currently in vogue in popular culture at the moment."

From my perspective, making the game more accessible to new players is the DEFINITION of making it better.

It should be, in my opinion, at the very least wide enough to INCLUDE "what is currently in vogue in popular culture," the 'at the moment' being redundant. At the very least, it should be prejudiced in favor of what is in vogue now over what was in vogue in the past.

Existing players can use whatever fluff they like; you want to call the 'elf' a wood elf and the 'eladrin' a high elf, well, nobody's stopping you. A person picking up the book for the first time doesn't have that luxury.

However, a better example would be the change to the origin story of the Devils. Wizards have just published a book providing a detailed and flavourful origin for the Devils that builds on thirty years of the history of the game... and now they've suddenly decided to change it.

Okay, where's the rationale for that? How does that make the game better?

By making it synch up better with perception in currently popular fantasy, in this case as embodied by console RPGs and anime since they are the only other source that really has a meaningful demon/devil split.

In which source, you have basically humanoid devils (ranging to balrog-like monstrousness at most) and weird, often Lovecraftian demons.

Lo and behold.

Now, one might argue that the same thing applies: that the rebellion against the gods is a well-understood element, and so forth. Except that to the vast majority of the audience, the word Devil should be preceded with the word the. To most people, having an entire race of these creatures doesn't make sense, it should be the Devil, and many Demons. So, why has that not also been changed?

To most people, I possibly agree. That's not THEOLOGICALLY accurate, but it's certainly a common perception.

To fans of major modern fantasy, the only distinction drawn between demons and devils is, once again, from JRPGs and anime - and in that, the distinction roughly mirrors the one I described above.

Honestly, the most intuitive move would probably be to drop the demon/devil split entirely.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

On the subject of elves, they have been described more as woods-dwelling rangery types than as powerful wizards in every version of (A)D&D that I can remember. (Even the Sun Elves of Faerun and Silvanesti of Krynn, both quite wizardly, lived in forests.)

 

[delericho]

Nor should it be "What was in vogue back in the days of Gary Gygax". And while I am not saying you are claiming this, "Don't change it because it's always been that way" makes about as much sense as "change for change's sake".

"Don't change it because it's always been that way" may be the weakest of all reasons for not making a change, but it is a reason. If two options are available that are otherwise equal, therefore, preference should be given to what has been done previously, IMO at least.

Publishing a book in one edition and then changing it in the next edition doesn't "make the game better" but it doesn't "Make it worse".

No. But again, unless the changed version offers some benefit over what has gone before, then making the change represents "change for the sake of change".

Why make the change? If the answers are "why not?", or even "we happen to like it better this way", then I'll call it change for the sake of change.

Does that mean they shouldn't make the change? My answer to that is "yes". For others, it is "no", or "not necessarily". But either way, it still represents a change without solid motive - change for the sake of change.

However, the change in the Devils makes the game better by making them more Distinct from Demons. As it was said from one of the guys designing the demons and devils mechanically, fighting demons and devils are seperate experiences that are very distinct for each creature kind. So I imagine they had to make them even more seperate.

In which source, you have basically humanoid devils (ranging to balrog-like monstrousness at most) and weird, often Lovecraftian demons.

You'll note I talked about the origin story, and not the shift of Devils to "humanoid with weapons" and Demons to "non-humanoid, no weapons". While I disagree with the latter change, there are reasons for it being made, so I don't claim it as an example of change for the sake of change.

 

[delericho]

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.

 

[Imaro]

I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the "smart" and "magically inclined" elves being renamed Eladrin. First the name Eladrin has no common mythology or cultural refrence that a new player will recognize. The closest I could see is something like this...

Player1: "What's an Eladrin?"
DM: "Well..uhm..it's like Galadriel in LotR."
Player1: "So it's an elf?"
DM: "No, it's an Eladrin, an elf is like Legolas."
Player1: "So there are no elves like Galadriel?"
DM: "No...I mean yeah, but there called Eladrin."
Player1: "why?"
DM: "Because it makes it more accessible to new players."

Personally never saw the High elf/ Wood elf distinction as all that confusing and much easier to explain than what an Eladrin is to a new player. There are no examples of this race outside of D&D.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the "smart" and "magically inclined" elves being renamed Eladrin. First the name Eladrin has no common mythology or cultural refrence that a new player will recognize. The closest I could see is something like this...

Player1: "What's an Eladrin?"
DM: "Well..uhm..it's like Galadriel in LotR."
Player1: "So it's an elf?"
DM: "No, it's an Eladrin, an elf is like Legolas."
Player1: "So there are no elves like Galadriel?"
DM: "No...I mean yeah, but there called Eladrin."
Player1: "why?"
DM: "Because it makes it more accessible to new players."

Personally never saw the High elf/ Wood elf distinction as all that confusing and much easier to explain than what an Eladrin is to a new player. There are no examples of this race outside of D&D.

Yeah, it looks like trying to describe a race with an unfamiliar name to a new player is hard.

As long as you go to great lengths to avoid offering any actual information about the race, but that counts, right? Besides the contrived idea that while he's got no idea what an eladrin is (because they lack mythological reference) he's asking the DM about it without any access to the PHB which is likely to contain about a page describing them (assuming they make it in there), that is.

So let's try...
Player1: "What's an Eladrin? I'm still a little lost in the fluff."
DM: "Well..uhm..it's like Galadriel in LotR."
Player1: "So it's an elf?"
DM: "Sort of. What they call 'elves' in the Player's there are closer to Legolas - woodsy, graceful, archer types, impetuous - a little 'wild', even. They're an offshoot of the Eladrin, who originally hail from another plane - and there are more powerful kin still in that plane - but are now largely stuck in the mortal world. The Eladrin remain thoughtful, intellectual, and magical, while their elvish cousins have kind of "gone native" and stalk around in the trees shooting orcs in the face."
Player1: "That kinda kicks ass, actually. Why is that?"
DM: "Because it's D&D, and D&D has since the beginning grown from people making up stuff they thought would be fun."

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, it looks like trying to describe a race with an unfamiliar name to a new player is hard.

As long as you go to great lengths to avoid offering any actual information about the race, but that counts, right? Besides the contrived idea that while he's got no idea what an eladrin is (because they lack mythological reference) he's asking the DM about it without any access to the PHB which is likely to contain about a page describing them (assuming they make it in there), that is.

So let's try...
Player1: "What's an Eladrin? I'm still a little lost in the fluff."
DM: "Well..uhm..it's like Galadriel in LotR."
Player1: "So it's an elf?"
DM: "Sort of. What they call 'elves' in the Player's there are closer to Legolas - woodsy, graceful, archer types, impetuous - a little 'wild', even. They're an offshoot of the Eladrin, who originally hail from another plane - and there are more powerful kin still in that plane - but are now largely stuck in the mortal world. The Eladrin remain thoughtful, intellectual, and magical, while their elvish cousins have kind of "gone native" and stalk around in the trees shooting orcs in the face."
Player1: "That kinda kicks ass, actually. Why is that?"
DM: "Because it's D&D, and D&D has since the beginning grown from people making up stuff they thought would be fun."

And, this makes it easier how? If not isn't it just change for change's sake. The argument isn't that it will be impossible to explain, but that it serves no "real" purpose. If Eladrin was something known to most non-gamers I could see it...but it's not. So how does this change do anything but change a name for no reason...In fact let's use your example again.

So let's try...
Player1: "What's a High Elf? I'm still a little lost in the fluff."
DM: "Well..uhm..it's like Galadriel in LotR."
Player1: "So it's an elf?"
DM: "Yep, but there are two kinds...wood elves and high elves. The first is like Legolas, the second like Galadriel"
Player1: "That kinda kicks ass, actually. Why is that?"
DM: "Because the designer's thought it would be cool if you could play the elf archetype you agree with."

Not seeing the "reason" here. In fact I think my example is easier to explain and easier for a new person to grasp out the box. It's changing something for no net gain.

 

[KarinsDad]

One of the design philosophies for 4e is "Look at how people actually play the game and make the edition to facilitate how most people play it." So I suspect you'll see a lot of popular house rules get added to the edition.

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.

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.