On the marketing of 4E

[Dannyalcatraz]

The reason I believe its most properly an idiomatic phrase is that if you looked closely enough at anything that could be called "change for change's sake," you'd probably find a "reason."

It may only be due to someone's ego or out of spite, but there will almost always be some kind of rationalization for the act unless the actor isn't sane.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In such cases--IME and IMO, of course--even such changes made on whim or without a goal in mind are still suggested because the person suggesting them thinks they at least have the potential to be better than what came before. Again, they may be wrong, and sometimes one can even point to objective reasons they shouldn't have been made--not often, but sometimes--but I've never heard of such a change being made or suggested without some motivation beyond just "I feel like making this different," even if that motivation is something as simple (and potentially false) as "I think it'll sell better this way."

You do realize that you are begging comparisons to George Lucas, don't you?

 

[Mouseferatu]

In the post in which I challenged you, I pointed out that this is how I've always seen people use the phrase- idiomatically rather than literally.

Sure, but it's an idiom to which I strongly object. Not only does it not mean what it says, but it's intellectually dishonest and/or lazy (even though I don't think people are usually conscious of that fact).

What it actually means when used idiomatically is "a change that I dislike, and I'm going to try to give that dislike a stronger, more objective basis by insinuating that it's not just a matter of opinion, but one of fact." It's just a more politely phrased way of replacing "I dislike X" with "X sucks and it's their fault." It tries to shift the onus of discussion/argument.

If people mean "I dislike X," there's a perfectly good and accurate phrase for that: I dislike X.

You do realize that you are begging comparisons to George Lucas, don't you?

Quite possibly. But that's actually a perfect example of what I mean. Lucas thought he was making things better. He was, according to most of us, flat-out wrong--but it's what he believed.

 

[pawsplay]

The reason I believe its most properly an idiomatic phrase is that if you looked closely enough at anything that could be called "change for change's sake," you'd probably find a "reason."

It may only be due to someone's ego or out of spite, but there will almost always be some kind of rationalization for the act unless the actor isn't sane.

I think it's fine to poke holes in the logic of common idioms. Just because a lot of people say it does not mean it gets a pass on making sense and being respectful. "Shut your tortilla trap" is an idiom, too, but the problem with the phrase is not that not everyone eats tortillas (which not everyone does) but that when used in non-joking way it's not very respectful.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, but it's an idiom to which I strongly object. Not only does it not mean what it says, but it's intellectually dishonest and/or lazy (even though I don't think people are usually conscious of that fact).

What it actually means when used idiomatically is "a change that I dislike, and I'm going to try to give that dislike a stronger, more objective basis by insinuating that it's not just a matter of opinion, but one of fact." It's just a more politely phrased way of replacing "I dislike X" with "X sucks and it's their fault." It tries to shift the onus of discussion/argument.

If people mean "I dislike X," there's a perfectly good and accurate phrase for that: I dislike X.

But Mouse, idomatic phrases usually are somehow dishonest or lazy or facially wrong- "The exception proves the rule"; "Head over heels in love"; "I could care less"...the list goes on.

Well, lets examine alignment.

As stated, I love the 9 point system, but I know its not for everyone.

But in what way is the 4Ed system better than either the legacy system or a G-U-E or elimination of alignment altogether?

For those who strongly like alignments & all that they imply, the 4Ed system is oddly partially truncated, with the missing branches just begging questions.

For those who dislike alignment or only like them in a minimalist sense, a G-U-E system is straightforward and intuitive in a way 4Eds system will never be, and elimination of alignment would probably be preferred.

Instead, we get the "change for change's sake" chimaera of a system- neither as robust as the 9 point system, nor as straightforward or simple as G-U-E or alignment elimination.

The reason for the change? Presumably to satisfy the vocal horde (percentage unknown) who disliked the 9 point system. But as stated, there were at least 2 other more intuitive and satisfying options out there...and they're pretty obvious ones, at that.

 

[gribble]

I wasn't saying that no Str 10 fighters exist, just that the hypothetical character in this example does not exist.

Apologies for misquoting you then - I must have missed the hypothetical example.

 

[MrMyth]

But Mouse, idomatic phrases usually are somehow dishonest or lazy or facially wrong- "The exception proves the rule"; "Head over heels in love"; "I could care less"...the list goes on.

Well, lets examine alignment.

As stated, I love the 9 point system, but I know its not for everyone.

But in what way is the 4Ed system better than either the legacy system or a G-U-E or elimination of alignment altogether?

Because the designers felt there was insufficient actual distinction between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, as well as between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil. They felt the new system was a more accurate representation of genuine viewpoints while still covering a full spectrum of behaviors.

I mean, I disagree. I prefer the 9 point system, even as I applaud them for making the truly phenomenal decision to largely divorce alignment from the mechanics of the rules themselves. It means I can ignore their new system and stick with my old one - or I can create my own blend of the two, adding 'unaligned' to the 9 point system, or any other changes I want.

But even as I fundamentally disagree with them, and feel the 5 point system is not as robust as the 9 point system... I can acknowledge the logic behind it. They've given their reasoning - they released entire books based around explaining some of these changes - and I think there is a certain level of intellectual dishonesty to try and paint the situation as 'change for the sake of change', and thus dismiss their work in that fashion.

They had a reason for the change they made, and they genuinely believed the new system was an improvement on the old. You feel differently, and it is entirely reasonably to do so. It is not reasonable, however, to not just disagree with their opinion, but to pretend it doesn't exist... and to then use that very claim as evidence for a flaw in the design process.

Find another example, and maybe I'll agree with your underlying premise. But as it is, I think a lot of what you claim to be 'change for the sake of change' are simply decisions they made that you disagree with, and are either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the reasons they had for those decisions.

 

[Betote]

I think 90% of the changes that have been labeled here as being "for the sake of change" are just "for the sake of sales".

I mean, if the Great Wheel was still in place, there'd be no need for a 4e Manual of the Planes when we already have the 3.x Planar Handbook. Same thing for Forgotten Realms. Without a Spellplague that changed everything, who'd boy a new campaign setting book when the 3e one was (and I say it as a FR hater) absolutely awesome?

If you want to sell something, you have to make it different enough from the exact same thing you were selling the year before.

And that's a god thing for us, the gamers. The 3.x Planar Handbook and FRCS haven't spontaneously combusted, so you get to choose your favourite flavour and stick to it, or try a different one each time

 

[Imban]

I think the changes to carrying capacity fell under, if not "change for the sake of change", then "change we didn't even think about for a minute".

I mean, I assume they didn't change carrying capacity from sense to nonsense just because it would be different, but it's the only change in 4e that I absolutely can't defend from any standpoint - it needed either less text (say, just its first line, where it says "You can carry whatever you want as long as the GM doesn't think it's stupid") or less change (you know, just using the version from 3e), but instead they went and supplemented "well you can carry anything within reasonable limits" with rules that technically prevent dragonborn from riding on any kind of mount ever.

 

[drothgery]

Same thing for Forgotten Realms. Without a Spellplague that changed everything, who'd boy a new campaign setting book when the 3e one was (and I say it as a FR hater) absolutely awesome?

There were no Eberron-shattering events, and the 3.5 ECS was pretty awesome. Nonetheless, a lot of people (including me) purchased a 4e Eberron Campaign Guide, and rather more picked up an Eberron Player's Guide. Becuase the 4e book was also awesome, and introduced just enough new and interesting stuff and 4e stats for old stuff to keep things interesting.