Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3790607" data-attributes="member: 32740">Goes to motivation Your Honor.Things change.  D&D changes too, both from one edition to the next and over the lifespan of a given edition.  New rules are added or old ones removed or changed.  People react to the new rules and changes, and then we see reactions to those reactions.  Some of the changes are hard changes - as might be exemplified with moving from 3.0 to 3.5 - but more often they're seen in options, supplementary rules books, magazine articles and stuff found on web pages.  These, too, are changes in the game - even if they are not "official" changes.It was mentioned that the design philosophy for 4E was to "Look at how the game is ACTUALLY played and then MAKE that game."  That is a process that does NOT just begin when it gets decided to do 4E.  That is a process that is inevitable and constant.  It is also a process that is NOT just perpetrated by game designers - gamers everywhere are constantly looking at how THEY play the game and then MAKING that game for themselves.  They make up their own changes or use those proposed by others - other consumers or by game designers writing new splatbooks and articles for Dragon or their own websites.It was also the design philosophy behind 3rd Edition even if it wasn't stated that way.  WotC performed the first meaningful research on how people played D&D, what they liked/didn't, what they used/didn't when creating 3rd Edition.  That is something that TSR had FAILED to do and was intimitately tied to their downfall.Now, AFTER the decision to make a new edition is made, CHANGE WILL HAPPEN.  Official change.  The extent of that change will, and rightfully should be fairly extensive or there isn't much point to it BEING a new edition.  Is that then change for change sake?Not all change is good, clearly - but not all change that is made simply for the sake of change is BAD either.  What then NEEDS to change in a new edition?We've now seen some discussion about market research and/or lack thereof - looking at how the game is ACTUALLY played.  Can anyone deny that how the game is actually played HAS changed?  Opinions may vary as to whether that change is good or bad but it HAS changed, yes?  Some of that change was prompted by the rules themselves naturally, and not all of it would have been anticipated or generally thought of as good.  And of course in changing how we play we alter how the rules continue to affect how we play, as well as what kind of future rules changes are proposed in reaction.For example, if a new version of the rules makes basic fighters a less interesting, less attractive option we naturally will play fewer basic fighters.  But this is unlikely to have been anticipated by the rules so HOW WE PLAY THE GAME will have changed.  The proposed rule changes that we then see will be more likely to try to improve fighters, not make them even LESS preferred.  How we play thus affects what kind of new rules are in turn directed back at us.Or races.  3E definitely opened up the ease with which players can have characters of monster races as PC's.  Result - we play more monsters as PC's.  Consequence - we see more problems with the rules with monster PC's.  Result - we change how we play monster races as PC's, whether that be by limitations on what we allow, or otherwise seeing more house rules or game articles.  Consequence - when the next version of D&D is produced we see changes in rules on how monsters can be used as PC's (in this case some limitations on what monsters are INTENDED to be used as PC's, if I read it correctly).It was also mentioned previously, and rather casually, that D&D has always grown from people making stuff up that they thought would be fun.  That is not trivial, that's significant as regards this topic.  Change for its own sake is not necessarily BAD.  Even though it ain't broke, don't mean it MUST NOT be changed.Can't the game designers change things, not because they NEED to be, but because this is an opportunity to at least TRY something different?  The intent might be to make it better even though what's being changed wasn't a problem.  Even if that sort of thing fails I'm not going to fault anyone for simply attempting it.  Certainly not when there is no proof that the motivation behind it is malicious, or borne of callous indifference.</blockquote>

Verification