Why Changes were made in 4e

[an_idol_mind]

I think there was a reason for every change made in 4th edition. WotC had in their minds a very specific vision of what they wanted D&D to become, and many of the old standards of the game didn't fit that.

As to the nine alignments, WotC envisioned a setting where the good-evil axis was emphasized and the law-chaos axis was not. Lawful good now means really good and chaotic evil now means really evil. Since the law-chaos axis was generally a point of confusion, they probably saw a chance to make alignments more understandable to those who were new to the game. Unaligned is basically the same as neutral, but changing the name separates it from the old tradition of true neutrality, which was once all about maintaining balance.

As to Vancian casting, I think that had to be changed because of the new power structure of the game. WotC didn't want a game where playing a wizard was significantly different in mechanics or complexity than playing a fighter. Since every prior edition of D&D has the fighter as a sort of no-frills entry class and the wizard as something much more complex, they had to shift the casting system all around in order to accomplish their goals.

As to the cosmology, since WotC had decided to change alignment, they had to change the cosmology around, too. The old planes were based largely around the old alignment system and the classical elements, both pieces of the game WotC wanted to get away from. Additionally, they seemed to want to make the planes more accessible without high-level magic. While the old planes were dangerous even to walk in and were inaccessible to most characters, the new planes were designed to be potential adventuring sites even to low-level characters if need be.

WotC had a very specific vision to what they wanted the game to be like and designed the new edition around that vision. Specifically, they seemed to want to emphasize the tactical element of combat more, remove certain imbalances in the system, and get rid of some of the arcane elements of the game that might confuse newer players.

I don't think there was any change for change's sake in the new game. I do think that a lot of people, myself included, didn't see the need for these changes to be made. In many views, tactical combat had already been over-emphasized in 3rd edition, the imbalance between the classes made them feel unique and interesting, and the arcane elements of the game gave it a unique charm that other RPGs lacked. In that regard, some people might use the change for change's sake argument because they don't see the old D&D model as something that needed to be broken out of.

Overall, I think 4th edition does what WotC wanted it to do and does that style of game better than any previous edition. I think the big divide is that some people don't want to run that type of game and see the newest revision of D&D as a step away from the style of role-playing they consider fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1) Vancian Casting, prior to 3e, didn't presuppose a set number of encounters per day. This is an artifact, IMHO and IME, of the time it takes to resolve an encounter.

2) I think you missed the real reason for these changes: Distancing the 4e from the OGL.



RC

 

[Vurt]

With the advent of 4e, I can see WotC thinking they had a great opportunity to streamline a lot of mechanics that have the potential for confusion. In the case of alignment, what works at the game table doesn't work at the bar/restaurant/messageboard.

In my experience, having discussions about an aspect of the game helps to better ground or immerse me in that game. If I'm discussing a question of alignment with my friends at a pub or here at ENWorld, then I'm functioning as a part of the community and investing myself in the game, and both these things ultimately help me to appreciate and enjoy the game more. If things are too simple, then there's simply nothing to discuss and no reason for discussion. It becomes a wasted opportunity in that regard.

We've replaced discussions of "Is this Chaotic Good behaviour?" (largely edition neutral) with "Why Changes were made in 4e" (somewhat edition specific) and cut down the pool of potential replies simply because the community is fractured in some ratio.

Again, better for new players learning the game than for us veterans looking for an interesting topic to read/discuss or situation to resolve.

 

[Shemeska]

Rewriting the entire demon/devil cosmology
This one appears to be somewhat a side effect. When WOTC sat down to create the new edition, they decided to question everything in the game to figure out HOW it fit in the game.

They appointed a story team whose entire purpose it was to figure out HOW things get used. They were supposed to examine things like Devils and Demons and say "When a DM wants to use one of these in a game, how do they get used? What reason is there for the PCs to fight these? What kind of stories are they involved in?" And they were specifically told to question everything, no matter how taken for granted they were.

One of the first things they tackled was the planes and their usability in game. What use was snowbank number 1,634,234,123 in the 243th layer of the Abyss in the game? What reason did it have to exist in a game about killing things and taking their stuff, while saving the world from evil? What made it different from snowbank number 2 in terms of how it was used in the game? What made it different from snowbank number 2 in the 1st layer of the Abyss? What made it different from snowbank number 2 in Cormyr?

Those questions led to the changes in the planes we see today. And, once those changes had been made, you need to make sure everything else makes sense. Demons come from the Abyss. Why is there an Abyss? Where is it located? Why do all Demons come from the Abyss? What makes a Demon a Demon? And the worst answer of all when answering these questions is "because it's always been that way". Especially when you can find a better answer.

I'd be surprised if it was anything as in depth as that. As with the massive changes to 4e FR, I suspect the reason had more to do with simply making it easier on the in-house team to write new material by not having to deal with previous meta-canon. And given certain comments by various WotC designers on portions of the past 30 years of cosmology, they may not have had a firm working knowledge of the material in places, or that they just plain didn't like certain parts of it, and being in a position to remake what D&D was, they did just that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd be surprised if it was anything as in depth as that. As with the massive changes to 4e FR, I suspect the reason had more to do with simply making it easier on the in-house team to write new material by not having to deal with previous meta-canon. And given some comments by various designers on portions of the past 30 years of cosmology, it may also have been that they just plain didn't like certain material, and being in a position to remake what D&D was, they did just that.

Did you read Races & Classes or World & Monsters? It pretty much seemed to me as if they had reasons for all changes they made. (And that'S what made me even more enthusiastic about them.) There was a story team for a reason.

 

[ggroy]

2) I think you missed the real reason for these changes: Distancing the 4e from the OGL.

Has this ever been officially confirmed on the record by WotC?

I wouldn't be too surprised if this was an underlying motivation for the design of 4E.

In principle, I suppose we'll only know for sure when some of the original 4E designers are willing to "speak their minds" in the future, once they are not working for WotC anymore.

 

[Rechan]

I think the route they took with alignment was a middle-of-the-road-try-to-make-everyone-happy approach.

Namely I'm just glad they untied alignment from the mechanics. I never liked alignment.

 

[Wepwawet]

IMHO, changes were made because they were doing a new edition.

The reasons for doing a new edition may be: excessive gloat (or is it bloat?), making more money, 3.x Grapple... whatever. But in the end its a new edition, it HAS to have changes.

Why would they be doing a new edition and make it just like the old one?

Now, about alignment and vancian magic: they just didn't make sense and were not fun.
That is my opinion, of course, and that of many people that embraced 4e from the start, and I'm happy it coincided with WotC design.

 

[Votan]

Your experience and mine clearly differ greatly. Vancian casting- for me- was part of what gave D&D its unique charm. It helped set D&D apart from all of the other FRPGs I played, NONE of which had anything like it.

And in 30+ years of play, I haven't seen the 15 minute day from either side of the screen. IME, casters who splurge with their spells will soon find themselves throwing daggers and shooting bolts- the party has places to be and foes to kill. And stopping here because you're out of spells is probably not an option.

Wow. When I DM, the only way that I ever get two or more battles into a single day is either to make them trivial or to use ambushes. Players use teleport, hidden lodge, rope trick and other stunts to race back to safety after hitting hard. The result is that I always see a full caster nova effect where they unleash limited abilities (sudden quicken, divine metamagic quicken, pinnacle spells) to annihilate an opponent and then flee.

This does have a major imapct on the viability of non-caster classes (although I still get a ranger in the party by making scouting and tracking extremely important).

This pattern has made me actually ban teleport in the latest round of my rules (to great player annoyance) mostly so that it is possible to get the second encounter (via tracing back the party or ambush) whereas before they would teleport to an secure location and then set up their extra-dimensional hiding palce (remaining until they were back at full power).

 

[Remathilis]

Re: Alignments

I can think of a dozen different systems to reduce alignment to. Think the 9 alignments is too prone to confusion? Do Good/Unaligned/Evil. Want something classic? Law/Neutral/Chaos. Want a bigger group? CG/LG/Un/LE/CE.

What we got was a 5 alignment that doesn't seem to make sense. How is Good different from Lawful-Good? Is LG mostly lawful with a hint of good, or mostly good with a hint of law? (Its seems the former, since a cleric of Pelor can be good or unaligned, but not LG). Ditto Evil/CE. Is CE are more-evil type of evil?, or is it Chaotic Neutral with a cruel and selfish element?

It seems they wanted to to keep the "concept" of LG and CE (as well as their iconic names) so they tacked it onto a G/U/E system as an after-thought. Seriously, I'd rather they have dumped the G/E off LG/CE and made a 5 alignments C/G/U/L/E. I need my needless symmetry!!!!

I'll refrain from commenting on Vancian casting (that said, you don't know sometimes how much you miss something till its gone) and I really could care less about the demon/devil divide (as long as they are still separate and in thier repective planes, I could care less about their origins).