# [Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule



## Mercurius (May 28, 2010)

I just read Ari Marmell's blog, "I fought the RAW, and the RAW won" and I have to say that my trajectory is rather similar: More house ruling in the Elder Days of my RPG career, especially with 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, and less so with 3ed and 4ed. Actually, with 4ed--because it was after a few years gaming hiatus--I sort of re-capitulated my former trajectory of house ruling: I started out with none, then started adding them like crazy, then started cutting them away until...well, I'm thinking of getting rid of just about all of them except for my favorite one of all, which isn't really a house rule: DM Fiat. I just don't feel like it is worth the hassle, especially in terms of trying to balance house rules with everything else.

My biggest struggle over house ruling in 4ed is with regards to critical hits, which just aren't satisfactory to me, at least not until higher levels and you get the stacking effect. But in general, there is nothing more anti-climatic than a critical hit at a dramatic moment, followed by "You do max damage, which is 12 HP." I created a couple options, including an open-ended system where a natural 20 could result in larger amounts of damage, but I've found that in order to get the right blend of balance, drama, and lethality-without-going-overboard, my crit system got more and more complex. Now I'm thinking of paring it down and saying that a critical hit does what _I--_as DM--says it does (in addition to the RAW version). For example, a crit may automatically kill any non-Elite or Solo monster of less than a certain number of HP, or it may do double max damage against a major enemy. And so on. The idea being to bring the drama and excitement back into critical hits, and to make them really count.

But I digress. What are your thoughts about Mr. Marmell's blog? Do you house rule more or less with 4ed (or whatever edition or game you play)? And is house ruling more or less difficult with X-edition/game?


----------



## MrMyth (May 28, 2010)

I don't House Rule a ton, but I suppose I still do it. Though I am not entirely sure, in his article, what definition of House Rule he is using. Simply changing rules or adding new ones to the game, or is he referring as well to customized game elements like unique weapons or powers designed by the DM?

In the case of the second... I absolutely still do use such things in 4E, just as I did in the past. And the level of balance in this edition is flexible enough that no issues have arisen from such offerings. But 4E seems to actively encourage that level of design on the part of the DM, and makes it relatively easy when you can compare races/feats/paragon paths/artifacts/etc to existing ones, and see pretty solid formulas for how to design such things. 

In terms of actual House Rules... yeah, I do use them. And typically to _rebalance_ elements in the RAW that I think are poorly done. Something like the Expertise feats, for example. Or, often, the same things that will eventually see errata from WotC itself. 4E is very well balanced, but some real mistakes definitely make their way into the books. WotC has done a very good job with eventually catching them and providing errata, but I still feel there is room to make fixes - and occasionally even the outright need to do so.


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

3.5e adopted several of my 3.0e house rules, so my book of house rules got significantly thinner.

Also, I discovered a few more elegant ways to get the game effect I wanted, and that allowed me to condense my rules further.


With regards to 4e, it's so big and has so many independently moving parts that my only house rules now consist of specific banned things... and that hardly counts as house rules, IMHO.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2010)

Not at all for me, actually.  I don't care too overly much about balance.  Certainly no more than I did previousy.  I guess I was never ignorant of balance before 3e, and I never got obsessed with balance during 3e either.  At the end of the day, I like a nice, robust set of mechanics that works reasonably well, but I don't value it too much for its own sake.

And maybe that's where we differ a lot.  I don't houserule to "fix" things very often; I houserule to _change _things.  Major assumptions, mostly.  Since I prefer a dark fantasy sword and sorcery to high fantasy wuxia or superheroes with swords, I've had to do a _lot_ of tinkering with D&D to make it work for me.  I prefer swashbuckling cinematic action to tactical fluency and battle maps.  Again; have to do some work on things.  I strongly dislike D&D style magic.  I strongly dislike elves.  (Although that's an easy houserule.)

So I houserule for reasons of style and taste, not because I'm an incipient game designer looking to put my mark on the mechanics at my table.

For that matter, I write very few of my own houserules.  One of the main reasons I still play d20 at all is because there are so many alternatives in print that I can pick and choose like a massive a la carte buffet of options rather than having to write stuff on my own.  If if wasn't for that, honestly, I'd probably be playing Savage Worlds or True20 or something instead anyway.


----------



## .5 Elf (May 28, 2010)

A few points if I may...

Regarding balance as a governing factor in D&D. I feel that this is one of the true dividing lines between editions and a hidden cause of edition warring. I submit to you that the edition wars, (Not trying to pick a side here or start one so please don't take this the wrong way.) are actually a tag team cage match between OD&D 1st and 2nd ed. and 3.0 3.5 and 4th edition. 

The whole balance thing is a function of game design that only makes sense from a game publisher perspective imo. A balanced product as a whole appeals to a wider audience I would think. I do also happen to think it's interesting that there are certain parallels to a certain Blizzard Entertainment product and 4th edition however. Mainly because of the intense focus on balance and the way errata has taken the form of "patches" to the product so to speak.

I think the people who are going to remain in favor of houseruling are going to start falling to the wayside more and more however as older gamers both leave the hobby and as the generations that are exposed current trends take stewardship of tabletop gaming more and more. The DDI suite only hastens things as it also makes it just a little harder and harder to houserule.

Personally I don't want balance to the nth degree. I like 4e but the balance conceit is something I could frankly do without.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 28, 2010)

IMO, this is the crux of the thing:



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And the problem is, once Balance became a major part of my process, in terms of creating RPG materials, I lost the ability to turn it off.




It's a tragedy.

It's like someone who studied English because they loved stories no longer being able to _just friggin' tell a story_.

It's like someone who studied Film because they loved movies no longer being able to _just go to a friggin' movie_.

As so often in life, I find the words of Kurt Vonnegut to be transcendentally liberating on the general topic:



			
				Kurt Vonnegut said:
			
		

> I think it can be tremendously refreshing if a creator of literature has something on his mind other than the history of literature so far. Literature should not disappear up its own *, so to speak.




Cross out "literature" and replace "rules," (or, really, any other creative process -- it works for 'em all!) and you have one of the big maxims by which I create. 

Ari Marmell is a very good D&D designer. The fact that he can't surrender all his learned over-thinking about balance and caution in order to spice up his own bleedin' home game, like there's Balance Police in his own brain, is a testament to the ability of intellectualization to absolutely crush innate, productive creativity. The creativity of those high school years, of D&D's *target audience*, of wildly unbalanced fun. 

I think it's really sad that his home games are barren of the rich, verdant fields of off-the-cuff ruling and tweaking that are the hallmark of any great D&D campaign, the thing that makes D&D *yours*, and not someone else's, whatever balance quirks or fudging blah or unintended consequences happen. 

Seems like he's come to a similar conclusion, since that post ends with a sort of longing for innocence ripe for a dorky version of William Blake. 

This is the tension between cold, sterile, keen, efficient logic and rampant, wild, destructive, creative chaos. I think it's sad that Ari's home games have lost, for the moment at least, the dangerous wilderness.

This is D&D. We're D&D players. The dangerous wilderness should be what we _seek out_.

And when there's no more dangerous wilderness, it's usually time to retire, at least for a time, to that keep you liberated so long ago.


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's a tragedy.
> 
> It's like someone who studied English because they loved stories no longer being able to _just friggin' tell a story_.
> 
> It's like someone who studied Film because they loved movies no longer being able to _just go to a friggin' movie_.



 I vehemently disagree.

Knowledge of a media may prevent you from enjoying the lowest common denominator of that media, but what it grants you is the ability to appreciate things which are better.

A knowledge of art history -- and a significant amount of time spent painting -- has not dulled my ability to _just draw a friggin' picture[/u]. Quite the opposite.



Kamikaze Midget said:



			Ari Marmell is a very good D&D designer. The fact that he can't surrender all his learned over-thinking about balance and caution in order to spice up his own bleedin' home game, like there's Balance Police in his own brain, is a testament to the ability of intellectualization to absolutely crush innate, productive creativity. The creativity of those high school years, of D&D's *target audience*, of wildly unbalanced fun.
		
Click to expand...


 I also disagree with your assertion that unbalanced = fun.

IMHO 4e is very hard to house-rule (relative to other editions of D&D), so the fact that Ari has suffered frustration trying to house-rule it makes total sense to me -- and has nothing to do with over intellectualization, or with balance being some kind of boogieman.

Cheers, -- N_


----------



## .5 Elf (May 28, 2010)

Nifft said:


> IMHO 4e is very hard to house-rule (relative to other editions of D&D)





Ok I agree, but why do you think so if it isn't relative to balance?


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

.5 Elf said:


> Ok I agree, but why do you think so if it isn't relative to balance?



 Exception-based design.

To house rule a class in 4e, you have to edit (or at least review & grok) 2.17 metric buttloads of Powers.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## .5 Elf (May 28, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Exception-based design.
> 
> To house rule a class in 4e, you have to edit (or at least review & grok) 2.17 metric buttloads of Powers.
> 
> Cheers, -- N





Pardon me but I don't get that at all. Wouldn't exception based design eliminate the need for the process you describe? Unless you were shooting for balance relative to other classes and powers? Or are you saying that by nature of the design if you change something you have to sift thru loads of powers to make it a consistent change?


----------



## delericho (May 28, 2010)

I've gone back and forth on this issue several times, and I eventually (late in 3e) came to the conclusion that it's usually better to use only minimal house rules - easier for the players go grasp that way. For much the same reason, I'm inclined to stick with well-known systems where possible, rather than going for niche games (unless I'm running something that is tailored for a niche system, of course).

(3e and 4e are also more resistant to house rules, IMO, because each loses a lot when heavily house ruled. With 3e, there's just so much stuff that heavily house-ruling the game may mean missing out on a massive library of feats, spells, monsters and adventures. And with 4e, the online tools are so useful that house ruling the game becomes similarly undesirable.)

However, I have recently concluded that while 4e is emphatically not for me, it is good enough (especially in some key areas) to leave me really dissatisfied with 3e/Pathfinder as written. Consequently, I am giving some serious thought to the possibility of putting together my own game.


----------



## Nightson (May 28, 2010)

Well let's see, I run a 4e D&D game that's been going for over a year now.  

I simply haven't felt the need to houserule the system much at all, but I do have some.

-When a multiclass feat grants you a skill you already have it counts as skill focus for that skill.

-Expertise feats for free (doesn't really count)

-Rituals can be learned and cast by anybody, the ritual caster feat gives a number of benefits instead.

-Aiding in a ritual has a scaling DC (pretty sure updates made this houserule RAW)

-I also cribbed a houserule I saw on this forum where beating the skill check DC by a significant amount could reduce the action cost.

I also don't have any problem with creating custom stuff.  Some of my players have custom powers, usually reskins of existing ones.  One player (at least) will have a custom paragon path when we hit paragon.

And sometimes I throw balance out the window.  When my players freed the primordial spirit of fire, I gave them all 15 fire resist.  Certainly not balanced as a mechanical option, but I'm not worried giving it to one group.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 28, 2010)

Looks like there's a bit of a misunderstanding.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> I vehemently disagree.
> 
> Knowledge of a media may prevent you from enjoying the lowest common denominator of that media, but what it grants you is the ability to appreciate things which are better.
> 
> ...



_

Oh, I'm not saying it's a causal relationship or anything. Sorry if I implied that. I'm just saying that it can happen. It's a risk, when you intellectualize things. It becomes about the intellectualization, and not about the *thing*. 

I'm sure you know art folks who are much more concerned about the context of their work then the work that they're doing. Heck, the creative types I associate with all come to that bridge sooner or later, they all have moments of it, and some never really move past those moments. 

A work can be too self-conscious, too aware of itself. This is part of what the hodge-podge of movements under the postmodernist (and post-post?) banner are aware of. This is meta-recursion -- references about references, rather than things. Heck, a huge chunk of modern art of all genres falls into this abyss sooner or later, but that's a whole different bucket of worms.  

As it applies to gaming at the table with your buddies, though, the expression is this: being so worried about getting something *right*, according to certain definitions of right, that you loose sight of what it's actually supposed to do for you in the moment.




			I also disagree with your assertion that unbalanced = fun.

IMHO 4e is very hard to house-rule (relative to other editions of D&D), so the fact that Ari has suffered frustration trying to house-rule it makes total sense to me -- and has nothing to do with over intellectualization, or with balance being some kind of boogieman.
		
Click to expand...



I don't think unbalanced = fun is necessarily true, just that you can have fun without things being cautiously balanced. So being balanced isn't a *prerequisite* for fun, nor does balance, in and of itself, make fun happen. 

Balanced things can make things more fun as well -- just as education about context can make creative art more fun, too. But I think we'd both agree that  there is a point at which, as Vonnegut said, it disappears up its own *. 

Just before that quote in the Paris Review, Vonnegut talks about how writers don't come from the English department at your local college. Much more likely from chemistry, zoology, anthropology, physics, astronomy, medical school, and law school. 

The point here is not that education is a bad thing, just that it can overshadow what you do, and if it does that, then it becomes a bad thing. If you're thinking about rules more than about if your players are cheering and whooping, you're probably not thinking about the right thing. You've disappeared up your own *. Balance can help you achieve that cheering and whooping, but it is not the thing you should be thinking too much about._


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

.5 Elf said:


> Pardon me but I don't get that at all. Wouldn't exception based design eliminate the need for the process you describe? Unless you were shooting for balance relative to other classes and powers? Or are you saying that by nature of the design if you change something you have to sift thru loads of powers to make it a consistent change?



 Many people prefer to only change things that they fully understand. In 4e, fully understanding how a class works requires keeping a lot more words in memory.

It's easier to ban a few problematic feats & powers -- which is pretty much what I do nowadays -- but it's harder to change the feel of the system.

Does that help explain what I'm talking about?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## .5 Elf (May 28, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Many people prefer to only change things that they fully understand. In 4e, fully understanding how a class works requires keeping a lot more words in memory.
> 
> It's easier to ban a few problematic feats & powers -- which is pretty much what I do nowadays -- but it's harder to change the feel of the system.
> 
> ...





Only partially. If you're changing things to go for a different feel for instance, wouldn't that be the end state, and you're not worried about any other aspects of your change? I mean to say if balance isn't a factor then why do you need a deeper understanding? I am not trying to be argumentative or obtuse but it seems to me that it really does get back to balance in the examples you illustrate. 

Why would many people prefer to have that deeper understanding you make mention of if it's not a balance issue?


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2010)

.5 Elf said:


> Regarding balance as a governing factor in D&D. I feel that this is one of the true dividing lines between editions and a hidden cause of edition warring. I submit to you that the edition wars, (Not trying to pick a side here or start one so please don't take this the wrong way.) are actually a tag team cage match between OD&D 1st and 2nd ed. and 3.0 3.5 and 4th edition.



Not likely.  The OSR vs. modern game "edition war" is a gentle summer rain compared to the storms that raged between 3e and 4e.


----------



## Morrus (May 28, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> I just read Ari Marmell's blog, "I fought the RAW, and the RAW won" and I have to say that my trajectory is rather similar:




Can I ask why you started a thread here rather than replying to the blog itself?

I ask because we pay for the blog posts and traffic there is important; so it helps to understand reader behaviour. You don't have to explain, of course - you can do what you want - but it would be useful to us if you explained the thought processes involved so that we might be able to adjust the system to accomodate them

For example - was it that you wanted more people to see your opinion, and felt that the forum would result in more views? That's understandable. It might point towards us seeking a way to combine blog comments and forum threads into one. Or was it something else that made you read the blog, ignore the reply box, and start a thread elsewhere? (That may have come across snarky - it wasn't meant to be - I'm honestly trying to gather information so that I can improve everything for everyone).


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 28, 2010)

The way I think about it is that blog comments are comments made to the blogger, or to commenters on the blog. A thread about the blog in a forum is a comment made to everyone.

Not that I can speak for the OP.

Though, threads being listed as trackbacks might be a good idea.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 28, 2010)

At what point does allowing an "expansion" book or "official accessory" into your campaign become a "house rule"?

In 4E, is the PHB2 really an expansion book? Does your answer change if it is PHB3 under discussion? Are they both "non-core" -- such that the refusal to accept the class, spell or rule referred to therein somehow gives you an "out" as to whether or not you accepted the RAW? Does that excuse you from the debate?

Is the _Rules Compendium_ in 3.xx really an expansion book? What about the _Spell Compendium_ or _Magic Item Compendium_? Are they official? If they aren't core, but are official, can you pick and choose and not be "house ruling"?

If I were to allow X and Y spell from the _Spell Compendium_, but not allow, say, _Orb of Force_ or _Downdraft_ ... is that a house rule?

Seems to me, that the pressure on all RPGs that grow into multi-volume epics of rules available to the players -- such as D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4E but happily not (yet) _Pathfinder_ (we're getting there soon enough, I wager) triggers a choice:

*Do I as GM allow it or not? 
*
Once you even *get* to the choice part of that decision tree, you are leaving the docks and setting sail for House Rule land, imo. To pretend otherwise and hand wave it away is a disingenuous exercise. You cannot so easily define your way out of that debate by pretending the threshold has changed-- when in pith and substance -- it has not. 

I think it would be useful to examine that dynamic in the context of House Rules, when to say "yes", when to say "no", and at what point does *not* allowing a published official expansion become a "House Rule"?

It's a pretty slippery slope, no matter what side of the debate you are on, in my opinion.

I tried the "allow everything as RAW in every official WotC book" for 3.5. It ended in* utter disaster*. I'll never do it again. 

Which brings us to the balking point: do these designers know what they are doing? Even if they do, do they have their best interests at heart when they publish expansion material -- or mine? Is it both? Really?

Does your answer change depending upon what part of the "expansion cycle" is under discussion?

I know that the nice sidestep to the conundrum raised above is just to hand wave these difficult questions away and attempt to confine the debate to "core rules only".  But I would observe that is an arbitrary dividing line without rational substance and is erected not because it is logical or persuasive  -- but simply because that's a debate where your point of view can prevail. 

I honestly don't think you can sidestep this problem so easily.  And once you throw expansion books in to the heap, we pretty much all House Rule our games, don't we?


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh, I'm not saying it's a causal relationship or anything. Sorry if I implied that. I'm just saying that it can happen. It's a risk, when you intellectualize things. It becomes about the intellectualization, and not about the *thing*.
> 
> I'm sure you know art folks who are much more concerned about the _context_ of their work then the _work_ that they're doing. Heck, the creative types I associate with all come to that bridge sooner or later, they all have moments of it, and some never really move past those moments.



 Sure, but there's also plenty of bad art which is bad for reasons that have nothing to do with being intellectual.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think unbalanced = fun is necessarily true, just that you can have fun without things being cautiously balanced. So being balanced isn't a *prerequisite* for fun, nor does balance, in and of itself, make fun happen.



 Mmm. I've found balanced games offer more useful options than unbalanced games -- me & my players tend to gravitate to strong classes.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The point here is not that education is a bad thing, just that it can overshadow what you do, and if it does that, then it becomes a bad thing. If you're thinking about rules more than about if your players are cheering and whooping, you're probably not thinking about the right thing. You've disappeared up your own *. Balance can help you achieve that cheering and whooping, but it is not the thing you should be thinking too much about.



 I'm reminded of an argument about character optimization. It was argued that thinking about optimizing your character took away from role-playing -- the idea was that, by being more able to rationally evaluate your character's combat effectiveness, you were therefore less able to be a good role-player. People had some anecdotes about seeing this happen to their groups.

My argument was that there are three stages to being a character optimizer. These stages are:

1 - *Mechanically Naive*: "My character took Toughness because he is tough!" -- At this stage, the player evaluates options based on how appropriate he finds their names. Mechanical effects are ignored or misvalued. The player may become frustrated when he realizes that his choices do not allow him to exert enough influence on the campaign world.

2 - *System Mastery*: "I made a half-orc spiked chain machinegun trip monkey. His name? Uh..." -- The player has achieved some system mastery, and his characters derive specifically from that system mastery. He picks options that are mechanically better in what he thinks is an objective sense. He "builds" all his characters.

3 - *Optimization Sublimated*: "Jaurim answers the bandit with confidant honesty: I do not fear your challenge, rogue, for I am simply the best duelist in the land." -- This is system mastery in service of roleplaying. At this stage, the player is not bound by "objectively stronger" options. Instead, he is interested in taking cool concepts and being able to use his deep knowledge of the system to make those cool concepts work.

Folks in stage 2 are the optimizers that everyone seemed to get upset at. Folks in stage 3 are fun in any game.

- - -

Now, what does this have to do with the discussion of "system balance"? IMHO, D&D is nearing the end of stage 2, which has taken us from 3.0e to 4e.

It seems to me that we are coming to a point where we can reliably make systems to emulate any genre, to facilitate any desired style of play. Sure, some people will fall too far in love with the tools, but that's (hopefully) just stage 2. It's temporary. They'll get through it, and they'll be improved by the process.

If you want to "achieve that cheering and whooping", you'd do well to take advantage of all the tools at your disposal. Balance is one of those tools. Perhaps it's one that seems to drive too much system design these days, but that's just how stage 2 goes: it's driven by mechanical concerns.

With luck, we'll soon enter stage 3, and we'll be able to rationally choose mechanics which best serve our style / genre / "cheering and whooping".

But the answer isn't to turn back, or throw away the work we've done so far. It's to realize that tools can (and should) be improved, but those tools only exist to serve the craftsman.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Riley (May 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Can I ask why you started a thread here rather than replying to the blog itself?
> 
> I ask because we pay for the blog posts and traffic there is important; so it helps to understand reader behaviour. You don't have to explain, of course - you can do what you want - but it would be useful to us if you explained the thought processes involved so that we might be able to adjust the system to accomodate them.




Morrus,

Personally, I'm glad he did.  The only way I know about anything around here is when it appears on the messageboards.

Waaaaay back when, I used to read the News page - but then I learned that everything was old news by the time it got posted there.

For the last few years, my only regularly used bookmark on ENWorld is this: General RPG Discussion - EN World D&D / RPG News

If you want me to know about the blogs, this is the best place to clue me in - unless you can create another page that I will want to check five (or twenty) times a day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: I just went intentionally looking for Ari's blog by going to "Blogs" at http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/

The only indication on that page that hinted at Ari's Blog's existence was a tiny little clip at the right-hand bottom of the page which said, in its entirety next to a little Morrus Avatar:



> As a note - for some reason this blog is being...
> I fought the RAW, and the RAW won




I'd suggest that you might want to consider improving the means by which we are able to browse the blogs.


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

.5 Elf said:


> Only partially. If you're changing things to go for a different feel for instance, wouldn't that be the end state, and you're not worried about any other aspects of your change? I mean to say if balance isn't a factor then why do you need a deeper understanding? I am not trying to be argumentative or obtuse but it seems to me that it really does get back to balance in the examples you illustrate.
> 
> Why would many people prefer to have that deeper understanding you make mention of if it's not a balance issue?



 Well, if you want to achieve a specific effect, you need to be able to predict the results of your changes. To be able to predict how any given change will affect a system, you need to understand that system.

In 4e, the system you need to understand is *big*.

Ooo, there's one other huge thing which makes house ruling 4e very hard: *the Character Builder*. It's easy to ban things, but impossible to add new things in.



Hobo said:


> Not likely.  The OSR vs. modern game "edition war" is a gentle summer rain compared to the storms that raged between 3e and 4e.



 Is C&C an OSR game? It felt fairly modern, compared to 1e.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## .5 Elf (May 28, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Ooo, there's one other huge thing which makes house ruling 4e very hard: *the Character Builder*. It's easy to ban things, but impossible to add new things in.






Yup, I made a brief mention of it in my original post. Char builder is a double edged sword for sure. The fact that it really only supports the RAW is a huge flaw imo. I sent an email to Mr. Mearls about it in fact.

To me DDI is going to be one of the single biggest things that will kill a lot of would be houserules with newer gamers.

It's also why I don't subscribe or allow char builder at my table.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 28, 2010)

> Sure, but there's also plenty of bad art which is bad for reasons that have nothing to do with being intellectual.




Right. Though I don't think Ari's campaigns suffer from that, if he's lamenting that he can't quite liberate himself from all the rules-stuff he's learned to appreciate. 



> Mmm. I've found balanced games offer more useful options than unbalanced games -- me & my players tend to gravitate to strong classes.




I don't disagree, I just don't consider a lack of balance to be necessarily something against a system. Especially a system that isn't really involved in its own rules.



> Folks in stage 2 are the optimizers that everyone seemed to get upset at. Folks in stage 3 are fun in any game.




Ari seems a bit stuck in Stage 2 as far as his house rules go. 

Though I don't really think Stage 3 is necessarily a natural or even desirable progression, since it is essentially just getting back to Stage 1, but with more jargon. 

I think that a player who can say "I'm the best duellist in the land" without having to know exactly the bonii that my seven feats give me and which paragon paths to take and how to position my mini on a map is a great goal for a game that wants to be as accessible as possible.



> It seems to me that we are coming to a point where we can reliably make systems to emulate any genre, to facilitate any desired style of play. Sure, some people will fall too far in love with the tools, but that's (hopefully) just stage 2. It's temporary. They'll get through it, and they'll be improved by the process.
> 
> If you want to "achieve that cheering and whooping", you'd do well to take advantage of all the tools at your disposal. Balance is one of those tools. Perhaps it's one that seems to drive too much system design these days, but that's just how stage 2 goes: it's driven by mechanical concerns.
> 
> ...




...and then might hit Stage 4: *Re-Streamlining*: "Why do I have to have deep knowledge of system jargon to pretend to be a magical elf? Well, I guess I don't. I guess I can be a magical elf without having to read 900 pages of rules and buying $500 worth of minis and mapping tools and special dice. I can just do it by flipping a coin."

...and then the process starts all over again. 

Tools need to have a purpose. A hammer is a tool for increasing power. A computer is a tool for processing information. A game is a tool for education. A D&D rulebook is a tool for pretending to be a magical elf. You don't need much in the way of tools to do that. In fact, you don't need any. If you have any, it is only because you want them, not because they are somehow objectively useful in pretending to be a magical elf.


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Ari seems a bit stuck in Stage 2 as far as his house rules go.



 Yep. That's exactly why I brought up the comparison.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Though I don't really think Stage 3 is necessarily a natural or even desirable progression, since it is essentially just getting back to Stage 1, but with more jargon.



 No. It's not jargon. It is being able to *make the system serve your flavor*. There is nothing undesirable about stage 3, and there is nothing beyond it: this is a simple thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression.

Stage 2 exists because of a specific frustration which stage 1 inflicts.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think that a player who can say "I'm the best duellist in the land" without having to know exactly the bonii that my seven feats give me and which paragon paths to take and how to position my mini on a map is a great goal for a game that wants to be as accessible as possible.



 Do you actually prefer a game where people play without knowing the rules? 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...and then might hit Stage 4: Re-Streamlining: "Why do I have to have deep knowledge of system jargon to pretend to be a magical elf? Well, I guess I don't. I guess I can be a magical elf without having to read 900 pages of rules and buying $500 worth of minis and mapping tools and special dice. I can just do it by flipping a coin."



 Yes yes, we all love d02. As a joke.

I'm going to assume an abundance of sarcasm in this paragraph.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you have any, it is only because you want them, not because they are somehow objectively useful in pretending to be a magical elf.



 Rules don't exist to facilitate "pretending to be a magical elf". Rules exist to facilitate *conflict resolution* -- which is to say, when you want your pretend magical elf to do something which conflicts with the goals and aspirations of my pretend magical goblin tribe.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 28, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> At what point does allowing an "expansion" book or "official accessory" into your campaign become a "house rule"?




Umm never. It is a house rule to NOT allow any official, non-optional core rules. All the 4E PHB etc series are core, not required, but still officially in the game. Therefore not allowing your PCs to use them you are house ruling. Not the other way around.


----------



## Morrus (May 28, 2010)

Riley said:


> Personally, I'm glad he did. The only way I know about anything around here is when it appears on the messageboards.




So the answer is to interlink the blogs and the forums more? That helps - thanks!  It's fairly easy to output the data in all manner of ways - it's just a case of what would annoy people and what wouldn't.


----------



## MrMyth (May 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Can I ask why you started a thread here rather than replying to the blog itself?
> 
> I ask because we pay for the blog posts and traffic there is important; so it helps to understand reader behaviour. You don't have to explain, of course - you can do what you want - but it would be useful to us if you explained the thought processes involved so that we might be able to adjust the system to accomodate them
> 
> For example - was it that you wanted more people to see your opinion, and felt that the forum would result in more views? That's understandable. It might point towards us seeking a way to combine blog comments and forum threads into one. Or was it something else that made you read the blog, ignore the reply box, and start a thread elsewhere? (That may have come across snarky - it wasn't meant to be - I'm honestly trying to gather information so that I can improve everything for everyone).




Just as a bit of insight from a reader's perspective, Morrus - if this wasn't made as a forum post, I would never have read the blog post article. By posting it in the forums, the blog post was drawn to my attention.

Even if there was a forum post directing people there and encouraging them to comment there, I very likely would have not commented even if I went and read it. The forum is simply more conducive to feeling like an actual conversation is happening - as Jdvn1 says, I might leave a comment on the blog for the specific author, but a forum thread would be were I would post my opinions for general discussion.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> So the answer is to interlink the blogs and the forums more? That helps - thanks!  It's fairly easy to output the data in all manner of ways - it's just a case of what would annoy people and what wouldn't.




Yeah TBH I would not discuss with forum members the blog on the blog page, that seems to me more to respond to the author direct. Maybe having a sticky at the top of the appropriate forum for x amount of time to discuss the blog. And at the bottom of the blog... a discuss here linky.


----------



## Morrus (May 28, 2010)

Yup, so I'm thinking making blog comments and forum posts the same thing.  That shoudn't be too hard.  

When someone makes a blog post, it cross-posts here.  When someone responds here, it cross-posts to the blog.  They'd be essentially the same data set, but presented in two different ways (i.e. one's blog would be a slection of one's lengthy posts that you'd like gathered together for people to view).


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is D&D. We're D&D players. The dangerous wilderness should be what we _seek out_.
> 
> And when there's no more dangerous wilderness, it's usually time to retire, at least for a time, to that keep you liberated so long ago.




This is what too many "experienced" gamers often forget. 



Nifft said:


> I also disagree with your assertion that unbalanced = fun.




KM correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't get the impression that this was your assertion exactly. 

My own assertion is that rules balance is not required for fun which is not the same thing. 



Nifft said:


> IMHO 4e is very hard to house-rule (relative to other editions of D&D), so the fact that Ari has suffered frustration trying to house-rule it makes total sense to me -- and has nothing to do with over intellectualization, or with balance being some kind of boogieman.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Nope it's simply so involved,complex, and dependent on uncustomizable software tools that the pain in butt outweighs even the satisfaction of getting the game you want. 

I still managed to houserule a bunch of stuff. I'm just careful that none of it conflicts with the character builder.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yup, so I'm thinking making blog comments and forum posts the same thing.  That shoudn't be too hard.
> 
> When someone makes a blog post, it cross-posts here.  When someone responds here, it cross-posts to the blog.  They'd be essentially the same data set, but presented in two different ways (i.e. one's blog would be a slection of one's lengthy posts that you'd like gathered together for people to view).




That is a great idea.


----------



## Herobizkit (May 28, 2010)

For the record, I saw Ari's blog on the News page as soon as I accessed the site.


----------



## bagger245 (May 28, 2010)

The thing is, will this mentality affect storytelling?


----------



## Rechan (May 28, 2010)

I house rule a lot. I didn't houserule all that much with 3e. Namely it was taste/fluff reasons (no alignment restrictions for class, for instance). 

With 4e, I find myself making more mechanical houserules because I find part of the system has flaws and I want to make it _more_ balanced (or, balanced in a better way). Or making adjustments to powers ("Effect: Sure strike gives a +2 to your next attack) that makes them balanced compared to other powers. 

The balance _is_ the reason for the house rules, not _against_ them. 

And it's easier to _add_ things. Like the "Rule of Cool" and Power Stunts. 

I expect the only real problem with making adjustments to rules is that the CB limits you. But I say bugger the CB. I am not its slave!


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2010)

The RAW's my b*tch, and I will keep it that way.

Pardon my French, but that's how I felt when I read this blog post.


----------



## Lanefan (May 29, 2010)

Herobizkit said:


> For the record, I saw Ari's blog on the News page as soon as I accessed the site.



So did I, but not everyone comes into the site through the front door like we did this time. 



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> I expect the only real problem with making adjustments to rules is that the CB limits you. But I say bugger the CB. I am not its slave!



Call me naive, but what is "the CB"?

As for the actual blog, it seems the writer got caught by the large underlying shift in design philosophy between 2e and 3e: 3e and later are by design just not as tinkerable withable.

Up to and mostly including 2e the rules were presented somewhat as guidelines - OK, here's the system; it's loose, somewhat modular, yet solid enough to withstand some changes: now take it and make it work for you, and have fun.  And we did.  I'd hazard a guess that among those of us on these boards who play 1e none of us are playing by the exact same rule-set, and so what?  Yet we still identify as playing 1e.

With 3e and since came a shift to the rules being presented as Rules, with tinkering (outside of a few limited areas) being at first subtly and later not so subtly discouraged.  So the original writer, being used to tinkering all over the place with 2e, had to mostly put away the toolbox.  Much of this is due to the 3e (and later) systems being much tighter - unlike earlier systems they played perfectly well as written provided you wanted your game to play that way.  If not, the later systems were (are) nowhere near as forgiving of tweaks and changes due to what have been termed "knock-on effects": changing one thing _here_ means something goes sideways _there_ and that in turn causes something over in the corner to explode.  And some of it might be a logical business decision: years-later expansions will sell better if everyone's still pretty much using the system as written rather than having tinkered it into unrecognizability.

In a sense, we've gone from a Linux philosophy toward an Apple philosophy. 

Lan-"get out and get under"-efan


----------



## Rechan (May 29, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Call me naive, but what is "the CB"?



Character Builder.

A publisher I respect recently was lamenting about how the Compendium/Character Builder put a real hurtin' on the potential of 3rd party publishers.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> The RAW's my b*tch, and I will keep it that way.




I like to say "use the rules, don't let the rules use you". (i.e., see sig.)

By extension, this means I don't take the rule as holy writ if they deviate from my idea of the right way to make a game fun. But it also means I won't slave away to pretty up a rule and make it safe for consumption (i.e., house rule out the wazoo) if its too much work.


----------



## Desdichado (May 29, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Is C&C an OSR game? It felt fairly modern, compared to 1e.



To paraphrase Shang Tsung, it was a taste of things to come.

I.e., I personally don't consider it part of the OSR movement, because I think it predated the OSR movement, at least as a recognizable and labeled phenomena.  Certainly, though, it was a hint that there was a significant population of OSR minded people ready to begin a movement.

And the nature of the game itself reflects that; it was dabbling in 1e tropes and conventions without yet fully embracing them.  It was like a hybrid of 1e and 3e.


----------



## Desdichado (May 29, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Rules don't exist to facilitate "pretending to be a magical elf". Rules exist to facilitate *conflict resolution* -- which is to say, when you want your pretend magical elf to do something which conflicts with the goals and aspirations of my pretend magical goblin tribe.



That isn't the only purpose of rules, though.  One of the reasons I like 3e (compared to older versions of D&D and 4e both, although for different reasons) is that the rules also provide a fair amount of character definition.  In the older versions of D&D (at least until "2.5" with full kits and whatnot) there weren't many tools within the ruleset to define your character, and with 4e, it seems to me that most of the definition is around combat... which isn't really character defining, actually.

In 3e in particular, there were a lot of weird things you could do with skills and feats you took, levels of different classes here and there, and whatnot, that really allowed you to define characters with quite a bit of granularity, and with quite a bit flexibility too, and a lot of those were things about your character that didn't have anything to do with combat (one of the most memorable characters in a recent game I ran made sure that he maxed out his Craft (Needlepoint) all the time because he was a rake and a womanizer and keeping his lace up to snuff was an important character quirk... to give one off-hand example.)

In fact, for me personally, that's much more important than conflict and challenge resolution, where I'm more prone to handwave a GM interpretation rather than rigorously apply all the correct rules to any given situation.


----------



## Celebrim (May 29, 2010)

I currently have a 500 page rules document (based largely off the 3.0 srd, with a mix of 3.5) which I'm constantly tinkering.  It's roughly as different from 3.0 as Pathfinder is.  Actually, in some fashions, it's more different from 3.0 than Pathfinder.  I don't honestly think I'd give it up. 

I find 3e the most tinkerable rules set of the bunch, because the base is so flexible and solid that you can build just about anything on top of a d20 mechanic.  Of course, it also doesn't hurt that today we have word processors making it infinitely easier to codify my house rules compared to the days when I had to write them down with a pencil.

This trajectory is pretty typical for me.  I start off playing RAW.  Gradually, as I get to know the rules set and how it ticks, I get annoyed by more and more small issues.  Each time this happens, I find some sort of 'fix' for the problem, and eventually this results in a results set that is as much patch and new cloth as it is original.  I don't know that this would happen to every rules set - as a player I'm generally content with whatever rules I'm provided - but it has happened to every rules set I extensively run.

With GURPS, a rules set that wowed me and wooed me away from D&D, this reached the point where I realized that to get rid of all my annoyances with the system would result in a game even I wouldn't want to play.  The designs which at first seemed to me to be so cool gradually lost their savor, and I came to feel that the game design was fundamentally flawed.  The same thing had earlier happened, though not to the same extent, with 1e.  There the problem was that I quickly realized that to remove all my annoyances would involve a rewrite beyond my capacity to keep track of.   I didn't have then what I have now - a word processor.

With 3e, I'm honestly beginning to feel that the end (so to speak) is in sight.  I'm close to having a core rules set I'm completely happy with.  I know its not perfect, but its flaws I can live with because I know now that there is no perfect system - there are always tradeoffs.


----------



## Votan (May 29, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Character Builder.
> 
> A publisher I respect recently was lamenting about how the Compendium/Character Builder put a real hurtin' on the potential of 3rd party publishers.




It is a double edged sword.  The character builder is popular because it is fast, summarizes all of the data in a single place and audits the character for legality.  It's also supposed to simplify calculations, but I find it does a mixed job of that.  

But it makes the effort in checking the details a high level PC much lower and makes maintaining characters pretty straightforward.  But boy is it painfully hard on my system resources!  Yikes!


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 29, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Up to and mostly including 2e the rules were presented somewhat as guidelines - OK, here's the system; it's loose, somewhat modular, yet solid enough to withstand some changes: now take it and make it work for you, and have fun.  And we did.  I'd hazard a guess that among those of us on these boards who play 1e none of us are playing by the exact same rule-set, and so what?  Yet we still identify as playing 1e.




Yup.  This is my experience as well.  When joining a new 1e/2e group, you need to ask the DM questions like:

"How do you roll up ability scores in your game?"
"Do you use the demihuman level limits?"
"Do you use max hit points at 1st level?"
... and so on ...

I think the default assumption in the older editions is that the rules are the province of the DM.  If the players want to know what the rules are, they should consult the DM, not the books.  Every DM tends to run the game a different way - and that's perfectly ok in the old editions.  Actually, it's one of the things that makes each campaign unique.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 29, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yup, so I'm thinking making blog comments and forum posts the same thing.  That shoudn't be too hard.
> 
> When someone makes a blog post, it cross-posts here.  When someone responds here, it cross-posts to the blog.  They'd be essentially the same data set, but presented in two different ways (i.e. one's blog would be a slection of one's lengthy posts that you'd like gathered together for people to view).




Sounds good to me, honestly I think I've looked at one blog my entire time here at enworld, its just not how a browse.


Back to the OP, I think balance like anything is a matter of degrees. Wildly unbalanced is not desirable, but neither is being a slave to absolute balance. Sometimes something is a bit stronger than another, but if its not wildly so generally the game moves along just fine.


As for houserules, I'm still an avid houseruler but I've become a bit more refined in my tastes. Now my goal is to create maximum effect with fewer houserules in general.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 29, 2010)

Votan said:


> It is a double edged sword.  The character builder is popular because it is fast, summarizes all of the data in a single place and audits the character for legality.  It's also supposed to simplify calculations, but I find it does a mixed job of that.




I don't really blame the character builder for being so rigid...at this stage of the game. It has already become the best electronic dnd tool I have ever seen, and the one I most commonly use.

Eventually though, to obtain true "dnd oneness" it will need to cater to user house rules...but creating software to cater to user customization is not easy, and takes time.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 29, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> With 3e and since came a shift to the rules being presented as Rules, with tinkering (outside of a few limited areas) being at first subtly and later not so subtly discouraged.



I disagree.

What's more, so do (at the very least) the 3e DMG and MM.

I won't speak of 4e in this context, because - although I've read the first three core books, once each, quite some time ago - I can't remember enough details to say either way for sure.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> I disagree.
> 
> What's more, so do (at the very least) the 3e DMG and MM.




Really?

I seem to recall a statement that got changed between the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG that showed a shift towards "trust the designer".

If I weren't so lazy and had stuff to do today, I'd look it up. Anyone got that one at their fingertips?


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 29, 2010)

Psion said:


> Really?
> 
> I seem to recall a statement that got changed between the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG that showed a shift towards "trust the designer".
> 
> If I weren't so lazy and had stuff to do today, I'd look it up. Anyone got that one at their fingertips?



I've no idea about any statements that might've been made.

I simply own the 3.5 DMG and MM, and in both of them, there are _heaps_ of examples of "make the game your own", and even _plenty_ of '... and here's some examples of ways you can, if you like: ..." type things as well. In both books, it's made abundantly clear that, for instance, you needn't use Prestige Classes at all, and _if_ you _choose_ to, the _best_ way is to make your own. Then there's the guidelines for making your own monsters. Some advice on making your own base classes. Rule 0 right near the beginning of one of them. . . though that might be the PHB, actually - still. That's just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I don't have any of my RPG books to hand, and the SRD doesn't really cut it. So. . .

I leave it to whoever else wishes to see just how open, non-dogmatic, and in fact encouraging towards house ruling and making your own mind up about things, 3e really is. (Or.. . _was_, for those who have left it behind.) It's all there, statements and/or rhetoric on forums be damned (I don't mean you btw, *Psion*, just so that's clear. . .)


----------



## Imaro (May 29, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> I've no idea about any statements that might've been made.
> 
> I simply own the 3.5 DMG and MM, and in both of them, there are _heaps_ of examples of "make the game your own", and even _plenty_ of '... and here's some examples of ways you can, if you like: ..." type things as well. In both books, it's made abundantly clear that, for instance, you needn't use Prestige Classes at all, and _if_ you _choose_ to, the _best_ way is to make your own. Then there's the guidelines for making your own monsters. Some advice on making your own base classes. Rule 0 right near the beginning of one of them. . . though that might be the PHB, actually - still. That's just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I don't have any of my RPG books to hand, and the SRD doesn't really cut it. So. . .
> 
> I leave it to whoever else wishes to see just how open, non-dogmatic, and in fact encouraging towards house ruling and making your own mind up about things, 3e really is. (Or.. . _was_, for those who have left it behind.) It's all there, statements and/or rhetoric on forums be damned (I don't mean you btw, *Psion*, just so that's clear. . .)





I agree, and let's not forget that 3.5 also had an entire book of house rules (with many explanations about why and impact) called Unearthed Arcana...


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 29, 2010)

.5 Elf said:


> It's also why I don't subscribe or allow char builder at my table.



I am curious, if a guy wants to make a rogue with powers from PHB and Martial Power, you won't let them build it out in the CB?  Why is that?


----------



## Riley (May 29, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yup, so I'm thinking making blog comments and forum posts the same thing.  That shoudn't be too hard.
> 
> When someone makes a blog post, it cross-posts here.  When someone responds here, it cross-posts to the blog.  They'd be essentially the same data set, but presented in two different ways (i.e. one's blog would be a slection of one's lengthy posts that you'd like gathered together for people to view).




Sounds like a great plan to me!


----------



## Galloglaich (May 29, 2010)

Nifft said:


> My argument was that there are three stages to being a character optimizer. These stages are:
> 
> 1 - *Mechanically Naive*: (snip)
> 2 - *System Mastery*: (snip)
> ...




That was a well written post and a good analysis of the theoretical framework behind the direction DnD has taken I think... the drive for players to houserule and the drive for the developers to make new versions (and new games) are both caused by the disconnect you eloquently described at stage 1.

But I think where your theory breaks down is the idea that we can get to stage 3 from stage 2.  I think stage 2 is a dead end.  In elevating balance to the sacred cow of game design, WOTC has stripped more than houserules out of the game, they stripped out all the different ways people used to play the game, and all the individual nuances which elevated it above say, monopoly.  Broken as it was, you used to be able to play DnD as a high fantasy, dark, low fantasy, historical, literary genre, cinematic genre.  Everything from Lovecraft to Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samurais... The system has now lost most of that flexibility.  You are much more limited to a very specific type of (ultra) high-fantasy / high magic game.

If you will forgive a crass political allegory, I'm reminded of a quote by Martin Buber back in the 19th Century, in critique of Karl Marx "One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been  turned into a club to put forth leaves."  I think D&D has entered the 'Dictatorship of the Balancariat*" and you will find that it is not, as promised a "transitional phase".  It is perpetual (until the collapse).  

The other problem I see is that in order to get to stage 2, as a customer of DnD I basically have to learn a whole bunch of what I call "Klingon".  DnD was originally based on the literary influences of great writers like Robert E. Howard, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, HP Lovecraft (all of whom have adolescent appeal but can also be appreciated on an adult level...) and the remainder was filled in by the completely wide open realm of 'real' Mythology and History.  Many of the game mechanics were broken, but quite a few could be intuitively picked up based on what you knew from real life, cinema, history or actual literature (as opposed to fanfic, computer games or manga).

Now days you have to be deeply immersed in gamer-geek or MMORPG subculture to understand even the basic concepts of the game.  4E may be a fine niche game for people who like that particular style, but the elements in 4E don't exist in history or in any literary or cinematic genre I have any interest in.  So for me it's a closed system, and one which I don't think it's easy to get to from just being a generic person with an interest in fantasy literature or history but no interest in getting invested in 'geek' culture.   That to me is the big difference between the type of people who got into the game in the 70's and 80's and the type of people who get into it now.

I think if you want to have a game that is fun and flexible enough to exist outside of the 'klingon' niche, you fix it directly at stage 1, then the DM and the industry game writers like mousferatu can quit worrying so much about game mechanics and explore the limitless possibilities of making fun adventures that grownups can take seriously, whether they be worlds to history and literature or computer games, manga comic books or whatever it is that turns you on.


G.

* Mind you it's not that I think balance is a bad thing, it's not, it's quite necessary, but it is not the _only_ thing.  Just like a plant needs water.  But if it's overdone everything else get's smothered (and your plant dies).


----------



## Teemu (May 29, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> In elevating balance to the sacred cow of game design, WOTC has stripped more than houserules out of the game, they stripped out all the different ways people used to play the game, and all the individual nuances which elevated it above say, monopoly.  Broken as it was, you used to be able to play DnD as a high fantasy, dark, low fantasy, historical, literary genre, cinematic genre.  Everything from Lovecraft to Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samurais... The system has now lost most of that flexibility.  You are much more limited to a very specific type of (ultra) high-fantasy / high magic game.



Actually, you can run a perfectly working 4e game with zero magic. Thanks to the warlord class and the alternative rewards option in DMG2, you can do it very easily and without sacrificing the use of the Character Builder (magic items re-flavored to natural, non-magical abilities). I think this could be the first edition of D&D that supports this since, if I don't remember wrong (little experience with pre-3e D&D), you need a spellcaster to heal the party in earlier editions.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 29, 2010)

Teemu said:


> Actually, you can run a perfectly working 4e game  with zero magic. Thanks to the warlord class and the alternative rewards  option in DMG2, you can do it very easily and without sacrificing the  use of the Character Builder (magic items re-flavored to natural,  non-magical abilities). I think this could be the first edition of  D&D that supports this since, if I don't remember wrong (little  experience with pre-3e D&D), you need a spellcaster to heal the  party in earlier editions.




But you are missing the point.  Whether you want to call the  mechanics "magical" or not 4E is still a type of supernatural superhero  world, a very very specific artificial genre which doesn't really relate  to anything outside of the RPG / MMORPG / comic book subculture.  Battleminds and Runepriests and paragon class powers don't show up in History, mythology, literature or cinema that I'm aware of.  I don't see any Teiflings in Kirosawa Samurai flicks or in the Arabian knights or Robert E Howard or Jack Vance or the Icelandic Sagas or the Ring of the Nibelungenleid.  



> ...  you need a spellcaster to heal the party in earlier editions.




No, you didn't.  Because in earlier versions of DnD  while you maybe 'needed' a healer if you used the RAW and played canned modules, but per Mousferautus  blog, _you weren't as closely wedded to the RAW or published material as you are now_,  which is why there was still room for so many other styles and contexts  which did have some relation to the world outside of certain cliche fantasy RPG  stereotypes.

G.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 29, 2010)

Hey, I have an idea. How about we _not_ turn this into an edition war thread?

Please? It's been a great discussion to this point, and I've been fascinated at the various points/comments/thoughts raised by what I had to say. Let's not ruin it.


----------



## Teemu (May 29, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> But you are missing the point.



All I know is that the rules as presented in 4e books allow for a non-magical game with nothing but humans and no high-magic elements (or tieflings and whatnot), and it still works mechanically.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 29, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hey, I have an idea. How about we _not_ turn this into an edition war thread?



Aren't you glad this wasn't on your blog?


----------



## The Shaman (May 29, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> But I think where your theory breaks down is the idea that we can get to stage 3 from stage 2.  I think stage 2 is a dead end.



I think *Nifft*'s theory that this is a progression of stages is wrong, though as a description of different states or mindsets I think it's pretty interesting.

I've long disagreed with the notion that charop inhrently inhibits roleplaying, and I agree that it may enhance it. But I think it's a stretch to see it as some sort of evolutionary endpoint in the development of games or gamers.

As for me, I tend to write a fair number of house rules, but usually they either clarify or expand on the rules-as-written, or they are there to add flavor. Only rarely do I feel the need to fix something I think of as 'broken' in the original design.

I've noticed over the years that the more complicated and inclusive the system, the more likely I am to feel the need to house rule one or more core mechanics.


----------



## Rechan (May 29, 2010)

I suppose that there might be a distinction. Ari's blog seems to touch on specialty cases all over the place. Things that were not "balanced" but were off the cuff uniqueness. 

Meanwhile, there are house rules you can make _within_ something to create more balance, or that don't effect balance (per se), but can easily integrate within the system - they don't effect the system. 

The former I will call House rules _Outside the system_ and the latter House Rules _Inside the System_. 

I can't think of a good outside the system Houserule - a corner case invention off the cuff situation? I donno. But I can think of one that's _inside_. Taking 4e, there's the notion of Passive Insight/Perception. Well, one house rule I am going to use is having all passive skills. For instance, if a PC with Nature encounters a natural beast, he'd get the monster knowledge info up front as if he had rolled a 10 on his knowledge nature check. A rogue with a passive thievery shouldn't even need to roll to pop open a locked drawer - the DC is underneath his passive thievery. 

That sort of rule facilitates an existing rule (Passive Insight/Perception) and merely emulates it in circumstances where other skills would function.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> That was a well written post and a good analysis of the theoretical framework behind the direction DnD has taken I think... the drive for players to houserule and the drive for the developers to make new versions (and new games) are both caused by the disconnect you eloquently described at stage 1.
> 
> But I think where your theory breaks down is the idea that we can get to stage 3 from stage 2.  I think stage 2 is a dead end.



 It's not, and 'balance' remains a bad boogieman. All "balance" does is remove one specific kind of frustration.

You may have other frustrations with 4e -- my group has been taking a break from D&D ever since we hit Paragon tier -- but I suspect 'balance' isn't the source of your frustration. I guess it's some kind of "geek chic" to hate balance, though? Whatever, I've never been one for fashion trends.



Galloglaich said:


> You are much more limited to a very specific type of (ultra) high-fantasy / high magic game.



 Mmm. There have been explicit options for playing without any magic items since day 1, if I recall correctly, and now those options are well documented in the DMG2 or 3, and supported by the character builder.

4e is easier to modify than 3e was, because in 4e the assumptions are laid bare, while in 3e they were implicit -- and in earlier editions they were impossible to discern, so far as I could tell.

In 4e, one can easily remove a power source entire (e.g. "no Divine magic on the world of Purghuthush!") and everything still works.

4e even makes it trivially easy to run "e6" games, by dividing things into Tiers. If you want a low-fantasy game, simply limit the PC levels to Heroic Tier.

4e can be a good toolbox. Many of the same tools have been extracted from the implicit assumptions which underlie 3.x, and you can see quite a few of them laid bare in *Trailblazer*. With that product, one can probably modify 3.5e as easily as one can modify 4e.



Galloglaich said:


> If you will forgive a crass political allegory, I'm reminded of a quote by Martin Buber back in the 19th Century, in critique of Karl Marx "One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been  turned into a club to put forth leaves."  I think D&D has entered the 'Dictatorship of the Balancariat*" and you will find that it is not, as promised a "transitional phase".  It is perpetual (until the collapse).



 If you don't mind a crass political counter-argument -- and we ought to keep these minimal, site policy & all that -- it was the Marxian state which collapsed, rather than the one he railed against.



Galloglaich said:


> Now days you have to be deeply immersed in gamer-geek or MMORPG subculture to understand even the basic concepts of the game.  4E may be a fine niche game for people who like that particular style, but the elements in 4E don't exist in history or in any literary or cinematic genre I have any interest in.



 This is simply untrue, and I'm a living counter example. I've never played an MMORPG, and I don't use their lingo, but I can handle 4e concepts pretty darn well -- and I'm NOT alone in that regard.



Galloglaich said:


> the DM and the industry game writers like mousferatu can quit worrying so much about game mechanics and explore the limitless possibilities of making fun adventures



 "... the mechanic and the auto manufacturers like Maserati can quit worrying so much about auto mechanics and explore the limitless possibilities of making fun cars"

Good mechanics are a vital part of a good adventure, just like they are a vital part of a good car. *Of course* they're not the only thing, but you'd be a fool to throw them away.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 29, 2010)

Though I can only speak from my own groups' experiences, I find that the only house rules we use less are those addressing some imbalance in the system (mostly because we feel that 4e is a pretty solid system to start with).  We still utilize house ruled races, items and even classes, as well as rules designed to evoke a certain flavor.

Despite our use of significant HRs, we make use of the CB most of the time when designing characters.  The way it sorts feats and powers makes it a significant time saver in contrast to poring through a half dozen books.  We tend to prefer hand written character sheets to the CB format anyway, so we primarily just use the Builder for putting the character together and then add any HR material to our sheets by hand afterward.  That isn't to say that we wouldn't appreciate expanded HR functionality in the CB.

A major part of why I like 4e as much as I do is that it's taught me a lot about balanced design.  Because I can see how the system interacts with itself, I find it much easier to do a quick "sanity check" regarding how balanced a given element will be.  That isn't to say that I've never introduced unbalanced elements, but rather that (most of the time) I've done so knowingly and intentionally.  

I agree that games that possess a certain unpredictability are fun.  However, it's been my experience that when a game becomes too unbalanced, it usually crashes and burns.  Premature campaign ending due to too much chaos is no more desirable than a campaign that is so predictable it's boring.

What I'm essentially getting at is that I think it's an oversight to assume that just because a system is well balanced, that you shouldn't introduce unbalancing factors.  If anything, because the system is so transparent, it should be easier for the DM to anticipate the impact of the new element and prevent it from undesirable interactions that might render it too unbalancing.  I think it's fine to embrace moderation and occasionally add reasonably unbalanced elements for the sake of fun.  If it's adding more fun than it's taking away (not wrecking the campaign), it's a net gain which is a good thing.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I think *Nifft*'s theory that this is a progression of stages is wrong, though as a description of different states or mindsets I think it's pretty interesting.
> 
> I've long disagreed with the notion that charop inhrently inhibits roleplaying, and I agree that it may enhance it. But I think it's a stretch to see it as some sort of evolutionary endpoint in the development of games or gamers.



 Well, I've seen this progression happen a bunch of times with various posters over on the WotC forums, so I'm pretty sure it's not just in my imagination.

I've talked to more than one GM whose players all discovered the CharOp boards at once, and helped them through the transition of having stage 1 players who all suddenly jumped deep into stage 2.

You can contest my analogy with the gaming industry -- that's nothing more than an assumption, since there's hardly any stage 3 stuff yet -- but the basic description of how an optimist* evolves is pretty old, and has seen some scrutiny. If the WotC boards didn't suck I'd point you to the old discussions... :/ Anyway, I do welcome new scrutiny, especially if it's backed up by experience.

Cheers, -- N

*) "Optimist" is my preferred word for us.


----------



## Gothmog (May 29, 2010)

I can sympathize with Ari.  I was also in a "balance is all important" phase a few years ago, and boy, is it hard to break out of.  

To me, balance is one of those bugaboo concepts that has some great positive uses and connotations, but carries with it problems all its own.  Its a positive aspect for game design in that everyone at the table wants to have fun, but if one character is more powerful than others (whether due to a class, feat, spell, magic item, etc), it often leads to resentment and problems at the table.  By controlling some of those options and keeping some wahoo ones reigned in, the game is better for everyone.

On the flipside, being worried about balance all the time does take a toll on creativity.  There were several times when I was DMing 3e (which was the time I was most concerned with balance) that I had a cool idea for a spell, critter, magic item, or whatever- but I just couldn't quite figure out a way to make it work in system and be balanced.  It was frustrating as hell.

For me, my balance revelation came about three years ago, while I was running a WHFRP2 game.  Now, WHFRP2 wasn't the most balanced of games, and some PCs are more powerful than others, but there are also some mechanical and roleplaying hinderances to that power (chaos manifestations when using magic and people's attitude towards magic being the big two).  Coming into the game, the players knew wizards were going to be powerful but that was also a steep price to be paid for that power.  In contrast, D&D over the last 10 years has really tried to eliminate ALL negative consequences of magic and power, whether mechanical or roleplaying in nature (which I do think is a mistake).  I've found if you're up-front with players about there being a cost for greater power, whether its mechanical or roleplaying in nature, they are usually ok with it, as long as they are aware of the repurcussions beforehand.  Once players understand that, then the overriding concern with balance can be relaxed, and creativity can start flowing again.

My solution for my 4e campaign was to make arcane magic risky, and subject to spell failures on rolls of a 1, as well as having many people in the world suspicious of arcane casters.  Warlocks don't tend to suffer spell failures quite as badly as wizards, sorcerers, bards, or swordmages do, but they are also beholden to other entities via their pact.  Divine characters have more RP restrictions- they are subject to the dictates of their religion, with certain holy days they must observe, taboos to avoid, and divinely-granted visions their gods expect them to follow up on.  Primal characters must commune with spirits for guidance and power, and can easily offend them by engaging in activities that are contrary to the desires of the spirits.  The payoff?  A houserule allowing all arcane, divine, and primal characters to use healing surges to deal extra damage with powers, or to immediately cast a ritual, or to manifest various non-statted, off-the-cuff game effects that would be cool in play (thematic or dramatic in nature mostly).  Martial classes don't get those bonuses, but they also don't suffer the restrictions.  When I told my players about this, they LOVED the idea, and have been just fine with some of the classes being a little mechanically unbalanced due to the costs associated with the power, as long as they know about it up front.  The other nice thing is I didn't have to do a thing with the Character Builder to allow for this to work.

As a DM, I found that its best to not even think in terms of game stats, powers, etc., when designing monsters, encounters, and adventures.  Come up with the idea first, then make the stats fit it relatively closely.  If the ability or critter is a little overpowered, thats fine- PCs are usually much more resilient and adaptive than most DMs give them credit for, and can often deal with many situations that seem hopeless.  And hey, if they can't, then running isn't a bad idea! 

Now, Ari is in a slightly different place than most of us, in that he's writing professionally and submitting his work for public consumption.  WotC does have an obligation to turn out quality material that won't wreck the game, and from what I've seen, Ari's 4e work has been the best I've seen from him.  I'd say this to Ari- we're our own toughest critics, but you really have nothing to feel bad about.  I personally think your recent stuff is your best, and is plenty creative.  My advice to Ari would be this: take some chances and do some crazy stuff in your home game- just see what happens.  As you get more comfortable with being "unbalanced", try some proposals to WotC and see if they bite.  Who knows, you might be writing the 4e Unearthed Arcana!


----------



## D'karr (May 29, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> But you are missing the point.  Whether you want to call the  mechanics "magical" or not 4E is still a type of supernatural superhero  world, a very very specific artificial genre which doesn't really relate  to anything outside of the RPG / MMORPG / comic book subculture.  It's not really compatible with any history, cinematic, literary or  mythological genre outside of that.
> 
> In earlier versions of DnD  perhaps you 'needed' a healer if you used the RAW, but per Mousferautus  blog, _you weren't as closely wedded to the RAW as you are now_,  which is why there was still room for so many other styles and contexts  which did have some relation to the world outside of certain cliche fantasy RPG  stereotypes.
> 
> G.




Sorry I don't buy it, and my current Sword & Sorcery Campaign based on the Ancient Greece doesn't buy it either.

I'm pretty sure Jason, Hercules, Perseus, Paris, and Achilles lived in a supernatural superhero world of their own.  I have no problem integrating all of that and more into my game.  

So maybe it's preconceptions that are causing the problem.  You see 4e as a Manga Superhero game, I don't and don't treat it as such.  So it works fine for me and my group.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 29, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> At what point does allowing an "expansion" book or "official accessory" into your campaign become a "house rule"?






mach1.9pants said:


> Umm never. It is a house rule to NOT allow  any official, non-optional core rules. All the 4E PHB etc series are  core, not required, but still officially in the game. Therefore not  allowing your PCs to use them you are house ruling. Not the other way  around.




Really. Well - I got some news. I've been down this road already and the vaunted "balance" in 3.5 was *utterly wrecked* by WotC's own designers as power creep destroyed the 3.5 game system.

So if "disallowing" an official accessory makes me someone who "House Rules"  -- then I'm ALL for House Rules -- and never mind what Ari suggests (though to be fair, I think he was talking more about 1st and 2nd ed and that a more mature consensus has now emerged that acknowledges that there is a "balance" in the game that should be preserved). 

Still - the problem remains in defining what is and isn't a House Rule when it comes to dealing with multi-volume system material.

If being "against" House Rules means that I have to permit every single official WotC accessory into my game...(according to WotC, you say).  Well - at least the ones they call "core".  Even if they aren't really... "core".

Hmm. *That's a very convenient position for a publisher to take, don't you think? *

Any chance there might be a wee bit of a conflict of interest there in WotC taking that position? Any chance at all?


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2010)

I think a big piece of the puzzle is that there are several different parts of "balance" and they are all independently optional.

1) Balance of overall contribution of class vs. class or PC vs PC within the party
2) Balance of encounter specific contribution of class vs. class or PC vs PC contribution within the party
3) Balance of predictability of the outcome of a conflict between two sides
4) Balance of the reliability of increasing or decreasing the potency of a threat or challenge (be it giving a dragon more HD or making the queen more resistant to diplomacy)

I'm sure there are others that just are not springing to mind at this second.

To me, #1 is very important.  I'm a bit of a slave to that one.  But I don't mind.

The others are all 100% out the window.  It nice to be able to have a handle on things.  And I really like having some insight into #3 and #4.   And I have a good deal of it in my current game.  But when all is said and done, the narrative is far more important to #3 and #4.  They are the slaves.

But when debating the merits of "balance" it is important to try to keep the speaker's context in mind.


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Really. Well - I got some news. I've been down this road already and the vaunted "balance" in 3.5 was *utterly wrecked* by WotC's own designers as power creep destroyed the 3.5 game system.



Yeah.  Fortunately, I agree with you about optional material.




> Any chance there might be a wee bit of a conflict of interest there in WotC taking that position? Any chance at all?



Heh.  No.  Perhaps you don't quite get what a conflict of interest is.
WotC has an interest in selling product.  Wotc has no interest that conflicts with this.
It is self-serving.  And it *may* be self-defeating if they turn off enough fans.  But it is not a conflict of interests.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 29, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I think *Nifft*'s theory that this is a progression of stages is wrong, though as a description of different states or mindsets I think it's pretty interesting.




Agreed.



> I've long disagreed with the notion that charop inherently inhibits roleplaying, and I agree that it may enhance it. But I think it's a stretch to see it as some sort of evolutionary endpoint in the development of games or gamers.




I think charop (if I understand your term correctly) ideally should dovetail with roleplaying.  if you have a game that is designed with some relation to either reality or a relatively rich cinematic or literary world you can avoid the disconnect.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 29, 2010)

Teemu said:


> All I know is that the rules as presented in 4e books allow for a non-magical game with nothing but humans and no high-magic elements (or tieflings and whatnot), and it still works mechanically.




I'll take your word for it.  


G.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 29, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Heh.  No.  Perhaps you don't quite get what a conflict of interest is.
> WotC has an interest in selling product.  Wotc has no interest that conflicts with this.
> It is self-serving.  And it *may* be self-defeating if they turn off enough fans.  But it is not a conflict of interests.




I agree with you.

The problem is, the suggestion by WotC that the designation of "core" or a ruling as to what is and isn't "official" or is a "house rule" is somehow a pronouncement of what is objectively "best" for game balance?  That's the part where the conflict of interest can arise when it comes to discussing splat books - as should be obvious to all.  I'm not saying a game designer is out to sucker us. But at a certain point, economic realities can get in the way -- and motivate -- corporate pronouncements of what is "best".

Accordingly, that's the part where a gamer must exercise his or her own discretion and we can find ourselves back in the 1st edition soup, as it were, when it comes to house rules.

At least these days, hopefully, a gamer can make up his or her mind after having the benefit of  reading the opinions of many others here on ENWorld.  In most cases, a broad selection of opinion is a better overall judge of good design and acceptable game balance than is any other yardstick yet conceived by man.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 29, 2010)

Nifft said:


> It's not, and 'balance' remains a bad boogieman. All "balance" does is remove one specific kind of frustration.
> 
> You may have other frustrations with 4e -- my group has been taking a break from D&D ever since we hit Paragon tier -- but I suspect 'balance' isn't the source of your frustration. I guess it's some kind of "geek chic" to hate balance, though? Whatever, I've never been one for fashion trends.




I guess we both come across as 'geeks' to each other.  No big surprise we are probably both right.

The problem is beyond "balance" but I think balance was the driving design theme which created the game as it currently is (and I do not limit this to 4E).  I just don't want to have to 'learn klingon' to play a role playing game, the more artificial the ruleset, the greater the requirement to know the rules in order to play the game, the more necessary it is to stick rigidly to one style of play, the more this is a problem.  

Most of the people I've played RPG's with over the years didn't really know the rules very well.  They had an idea of what their character was and what they could do, and they described their actions based on what they had seen.  This way I can fairly easily get my girlfriend, co-workers, drinking buddies etc. to try out a game without having to think about things like 'move actions' and 'healing surges'. 

I don't have a problem with structure existing, some people like it and it can be useful when you need it, but I don't want to be forced to play the game that way.  If I feel like I have to play with miniatures and maps, counters and special chits, it's not really a role-playing game to me, it's a board game.



> Mmm. There have been explicit options for playing without any magic items since day 1, if I recall correctly, and now those options are well documented in the DMG2 or 3, and supported by the character builder.



So I hear.  I guess we have different perceptions of what magic means.  To me automatic regeneration of wounds and 'healing surges' is magic.



> 4e even makes it trivially easy to run "e6" games, by dividing things into Tiers. If you want a low-fantasy game, simply limit the PC levels to Heroic Tier.



Again, different strokes, the Heroic Tier in 4E is not my idea of low-fantasy.



> If you don't mind a crass political counter-argument -- and we ought to keep these minimal, site policy & all that -- it was the Marxian state which collapsed, rather than the one he railed against.



You missed my point.  The quote was 'railing against' the Marxists.  



> "... the mechanic and the auto manufacturers like Maserati can quit worrying so much about auto mechanics and explore the limitless possibilities of making fun cars"
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Or you can be like the American Auto industry and keep tinkering with your Mustangs and Malibus until you end up making a Dodge Monaco.

G.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> I guess we both come across as 'geeks' to each other.  No big surprise we are probably both right.



 Oh, I am 110% fine with being called a 'geek'. My only claim was that I'm not particularly prone to fashion, specifically to the current 'geek chic' which seems to be hating "balance".



Galloglaich said:


> The problem is beyond "balance" but I think balance was the driving design theme which created the game as it currently is (and I do not limit this to 4E).  I just don't want to have to 'learn klingon' to play a role playing game, the more artificial the ruleset, the greater the requirement to know the rules in order to play the game, the more necessary it is to stick rigidly to one style of play, the more this is a problem.



 Eh, if you can handle "hit points" and "THAC0" (or "BAB") and "save vs. rod/staff/wand" (or "flat-footed incorporeal touch AC"), then you can handle 4e. All editions have had their jargon, this newest one is not exceptional.



Galloglaich said:


> So I hear.  I guess we have different perceptions of what magic means.  To me automatic regeneration of wounds and 'healing surges' is magic.



 If you think lost HP = wounds, you're at odds with what the books have said about HP since 1e. Maybe since earlier, but 1e is when I started paying attention.

- - -

Anyway. It sounds to me like you don't like 4e, and that your dislike stems from something other than experience with the system. Am I wrong here? Have you played it much?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 29, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> The problem is, the suggestion by WotC that the designation of "core" or a ruling as to what is and isn't "official" or is a "house rule" is somehow a pronouncement of what is objectively "best" for game balance?  That's the part where the conflict of interest can arise when it comes to discussing splat books - as should be obvious to all.  I'm not saying a game designer is out to sucker us. But at a certain point, economic realities can get in the way -- and motivate -- corporate pronouncements of what is "best".




IMO, house rules have nothing to do with whether or not one uses an official product.  As far as I'm concerned, house rules concern unofficial additions or modifications to a game.

That isn't to say that splat books are or aren't balanced, but rather that they're (largely, with the exception of something like Unearthed Arcana) official by merit of being published by the game's owner.  House rules (balanced or not), by contrast, are unofficial and usually fan-made rules.

One can hope that official products will be well balanced, and one might feel the need to make house ruled modifications to a products if it wasn't up to snuff, but I don't consider the use or prohibition of PHB2 material to constitute a house rule.  It's just a subset of the official material that either is or isn't allowed in a particular campaign.  That's my two cents...


----------



## Desdichado (May 29, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Really. Well - I got some news. I've been down this road already and the vaunted "balance" in 3.5 was *utterly wrecked* by WotC's own designers as power creep destroyed the 3.5 game system.



Whacoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?  3.5 isn't "destroyed."  Many, many people are still happily playing it.  And as an evolution of 3.5, Pathfinder seems to be doing remarkably well.  Ironically by embracing that "creeped" power level.


			
				Steel-Wind said:
			
		

> Still - the problem remains in defining what is and isn't a House Rule when it comes to dealing with multi-volume system material.



I don't see how that's a problem in any realistic way.


			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> If being "against" House Rules means that I have to permit every single official WotC accessory into my game...(according to WotC, you say).  Well - at least the ones they call "core".  Even if they aren't really... "core".



This concern about labels: core, official, whatnot... another thing I've never gotten.


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> The problem is, the suggestion by WotC that the designation of "core" or a ruling as to what is and isn't "official" or is a "house rule" is somehow a pronouncement of what is objectively "best" for game balance?



I'll still be petty about the term "conflict of interest".

But I agree with the principle you are describing.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 30, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Whacoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?  3.5 isn't "destroyed."  Many, many people are still happily playing it.  And as an evolution of 3.5, Pathfinder seems to be doing remarkably well.  Ironically by embracing that "creeped" power level.




Funny. We are playing and running _Pathfinder_ to escape the power creep in 3.5.

No _Orb of Force_ or _Downdraft_ spells in my Pathfinder Core Rules. Mystic Theurge? Can't seem to find it.

More to the point, the game balance in 3.5 is incompatible with adventure material written that does not incorporate said dozens of splat books.

You can like the game as you like. I have two shelves of it so it's not that I didn't buy it or play it. If DM and players alike are all using the same splat books and are each familiar with the late 3.5 system - yeah it will work. More power to you (not that you need much more!!)

But the problem of power creep in 3.5 with respect to published adventure material is objectively true. That's what I'm talkin 'bout Willis.

So - is that a House Rule that allows those books in -- or is it my House Rule that doesn't? If I want to allow some of the _Spell Compendium_, but not all of it (_Orb_ spells, goodbye), is that a House Rule or not?

That's my point: once you get to that stage when it comes to accessories, you are setting sail for the *Land of House Rules*, like it or not...


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 30, 2010)

You are missing my point. I never said that everything an official publisher put out was core. I said that everything they say is core *is core*. It is their decision, in 3E it was the 3 books only, everything else was optional. In 4E it is pretty much every book, everything in the CB anyway. So if one decides to not include things that are in the core rules you are house ruling. 

The scale sure is different: If a 4E DM says 'no PHB2 classes' that is a house rule, it is not if a 3E DM said the same thing. the creators/writers of the rules hold the definition of official, not the fans, cos they are official.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Eh, if you can handle "hit points" and "THAC0" (or "BAB") and "save vs. rod/staff/wand" (or "flat-footed incorporeal touch AC"), then you can handle 4e. All editions have had their jargon, this newest one is not exceptional.




Those concepts were in the game, but you didn't _have_ to live in the midst of them unless you wanted to.  In my game it was just "you stumbled into a hole, roll the dice to see if you fall in" and you can look at the chart or not look at the chart.  You don't _need_ to have a stack of poker chips or cards or miniatures to keep track of your buff or your healing surges or whatever, and you don't _have_ to play on a battlemap etc.



> If you think lost HP = wounds, you're at odds with what the books have said about HP since 1e. Maybe since earlier, but 1e is when I started paying attention.




Yes and there has been a disconnect on that (cure light wounds anyone) since the first edition of the game.  The concept is still all kinds of broken... if it is just a "fatigue surge" maybe they should call it that   Personally I think it comes from computer games.



> Anyway. It sounds to me like you don't like 4e, and that your dislike stems from something other than experience with the system. Am I wrong here? Have you played it much?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I had issues with 3.5 power creep thing they are talking about in the other part of the thread as well.  And I like history, literature, mythology, martial arts, and I like to put these elements into my game.  I really honestly can't see any way to do that in 4E.   To do it in 3.X i had to make my own game, but it was at least possible.  When they started making it so hard-wired to a specific play style (and got rid of OGL) I got annoyed.

 Basically I want DnD to be a more flexible game so you can play it  lot  of different ways... like a horror movie or like a Jack Vance novel or like an Icelandic Saga or a Lovecraft story.  I think DnD is the gateway RPG and should have room for people who like to play  the way I do and people who like to play the way you do at the same time.  I suspect  there is quite a gap there.

On the other hand I'm a big fan of Nifft the Lean, and all of Michael Sheas other Vance-spinoff novels though.  So if that is where your name here comes from we must have _something_ in common .

G.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 30, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> You are missing my point. I never said that everything an official publisher put out was core. I said that everything they say is core *is core*. It is their decision, in 3E it was the 3 books only, everything else was optional. In 4E it is pretty much every book, everything in the CB anyway. So if one decides to not include things that are in the core rules you are house ruling.
> 
> The scale sure is different: If a 4E DM says 'no PHB2 classes' that is a house rule, it is not if a 3E DM said the same thing. the creators/writers of the rules hold the definition of official, not the fans, cos they are official.




With the greatest of respect, I didn't miss your point. I got it completely and entirely. 

So now, to PRESERVE balance in 4E (which was the point of NOT "house ruling" in Ari's original article) we need to "House Rule" to NOT allow an accessory product? 

As I said, once you throw accessories into the mix - we're setitng sail to the Land of House Rules, like it or not.

Unless of course, your idea of maintaining balance by NOT "House Ruling" is to indiscriminately let every splat book into your game "just because WotC put it in the CB". In that respect,  NOT House Ruling then destroys the game.

And _voila_, we've come full circle.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 30, 2010)

I am not discussing balancing I am discussing house rules. You can house rule for anything not just balance. Your original question was '_At what point does allowing an "expansion" book or "official accessory" into your campaign become a "house rule"_' and I answered it badly. EDIT: my answer was not specific enough, sorry.

IMO if it is an official and core product, not allowing it is a house rule (3E = 3 core books; 4E = a lot more books!). If it is an official yet not core book, then letting it in your campaign is optional, and therefore either letting it in or not is a house rule. 

_"So now, to PRESERVE balance in 4E (which was the point of NOT "house ruling" in Ari's original article) we need to "House Rule" to NOT allow an accessory product? " _yes that is correct, if you are disallowing a CORE product that is a house rule, whether it is balanced or not. In the first go at skill challenges WotC got it totally wrong, the math was the worst I have seen in a pro RPG product in the last dozen years! However it was in the DMG and if you changed the numbers you are house ruling, balance does not come into it.

I am in no way saying that you have to stick to what ever is published but as soon as you start banning or modifying CORE (and the definition of core is the creators/publishers/etc) then you are house ruling, IMO.

Does that make better sense? In 3E letting in Bof9S classes is a house rule, it is not CORE. In 4E banning the PHB2 classes is a house rule (4E PHB2 is a CORE product). However IMO in 4E using the 'no magic items' optional rule in the DMG2 is a house rule because it is presented as an optional rule not the standard.

Apologies if I thought you didn't get my point, I thought you were saying that I thought the 3E splat books etc were CORE, which they are not.


----------



## Desdichado (May 30, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Funny. We are playing and running _Pathfinder_ to escape the power creep in 3.5.



Funny.  We are playing and running 3.5 (in part) to avoid the power creep of Pathfinder.


> More to the point, the game balance in 3.5 is incompatible with adventure material written that does not incorporate said dozens of splat books.



What adventure material?  Unless you were playing some really bizarre and esoteric adventure material that I've never even heard of, much less seen, adventure material didn't even assume _any_ splat books were in play, much less dozens.


> But the problem of power creep in 3.5 with respect to published adventure material is objectively true. That's what I'm talkin 'bout Willis.



Oh, it's objective, is it?  There's data to back up this assertion?

Let's see it.  I'm all ears.


> So - is that a House Rule that allows those books in -- or is it my House Rule that doesn't? If I want to allow some of the _Spell Compendium_, but not all of it (_Orb_ spells, goodbye), is that a House Rule or not?



Who cares what label you assign to it?  I asked why you're so hung up on the label, and rather than answer, you just asked yet again if it's a house rule or not.  Sure, it's a house rule.  Who cares?


> That's my point: once you get to that stage when it comes to accessories, you are setting sail for the *Land of House Rules*, like it or not...



That's a completely nonsensical assertion.  You certainly aren't there, "whether you like it or not."  If you don't like to be there, then don't make any houserules.  You certainly don't have to.  You even said so yourself earlier in this same post I'm replying to.  Get everyone on the same page about accessories in play.


----------



## bagger245 (May 30, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Sorry I don't buy it, and my current Sword & Sorcery Campaign based on the Ancient Greece doesn't buy it either.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Jason, Hercules, Perseus, Paris, and Achilles lived in a supernatural superhero world of their own.  I have no problem integrating all of that and more into my game.
> 
> So maybe it's preconceptions that are causing the problem.  You see 4e as a Manga Superhero game, I don't and don't treat it as such.  So it works fine for me and my group.




The heroes you listed are demi-gods in literature. So of course 4e works fine for that style.


----------



## Nightson (May 30, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Funny. We are playing and running _Pathfinder_ to escape the power creep in 3.5.
> 
> Mystic Theurge? Can't seem to find it.




Check on page 387


----------



## D'karr (May 30, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> The heroes you listed are demi-gods in literature. So of course 4e works fine for that style.




Jason & Paris were demigods?  That's a new one for me.  The fact that they are in literature and that I can have a swords & sorcery game that emulates that literature was my point.

Something that was claimed as impossible.  

Close but no cigar...


----------



## Orius (May 30, 2010)

I never did a lot of serious houseruling.  The closest I came was compiling NWPs and kits in the late 2e days, and adapting all the NWPs in non-PHB/Skills and Powers sources to the Player's option rules.  I thought the PO NWP system was superior to the standard one, and I wanted to use it instead.  Also, I wanted to complile all those kits from the complete series and Dragon and such, merge the redundant ones (like all the Noble/Peasant/Pirate/Swashbuckler/etc. variations that were all basically the same), and adapt them to the PO approach.

I dropped that when 3e came out.  First, I switched completely to 3e, and secondly, 3e's skill system was a lot like what I wanted to do, but much more streamlined and easier for me to work with.  You know those Knowledge/Craft/Profession/etc skills in 3e?  In 2e they were all seperate, individual proficiencies.  The skills in 3e kept things simpler and less complex, and as a result I never finished what I was working on and threw the notes out.  



Morrus said:


> So the answer is to interlink the blogs and the forums more? That helps - thanks!  It's fairly easy to output the data in all manner of ways - it's just a case of what would annoy people and what wouldn't.




Sounds good to me.  I could have been the first to post to Ari's blog yesterday, but I didn't because I felt the forums would give me a bigger audience.  



Lanefan said:


> Up to and mostly including 2e the rules were presented somewhat as guidelines - OK, here's the system; it's loose, somewhat modular, yet solid enough to withstand some changes: now take it and make it work for you, and have fun.  And we did.  I'd hazard a guess that among those of us on these boards who play 1e none of us are playing by the exact same rule-set, and so what?  Yet we still identify as playing 1e.
> 
> With 3e and since came a shift to the rules being presented as Rules, with tinkering (outside of a few limited areas) being at first subtly and later not so subtly discouraged.  So the original writer, being used to tinkering all over the place with 2e, had to mostly put away the toolbox.  Much of this is due to the 3e (and later) systems being much tighter - unlike earlier systems they played perfectly well as written provided you wanted your game to play that way.  If not, the later systems were (are) nowhere near as forgiving of tweaks and changes due to what have been termed "knock-on effects": changing one thing _here_ means something goes sideways _there_ and that in turn causes something over in the corner to explode.  And some of it might be a logical business decision: years-later expansions will sell better if everyone's still pretty much using the system as written rather than having tinkered it into unrecognizability.




Well, 1e was also house ruled because players/DM liked some of the rules but not all of it.  So they went in and fixed what they didn't like.  Same went for 2e.  Part of that was because some of the rules were added without thinking about how they affected other rules, so the system at times felt clunky.  I remember the term for the late 2e rules was "kludgy". 

The design philosophy for the original 3e rules was basically to go into the system and hammer out the various systems and tweak them to work together more smoothly. This is where balance first came in, but from my observations, people house ruled AD&D because they felt _that_ system was unbalanced and they wanted to fix it.  So balance may have been far more central to game design from 3e on, but it seems to have long been a concern with players anyway.



Hobo said:


> This concern about labels: core, official, whatnot... another thing I've never gotten.




Different issue IMO.  When WotC labels something "official" or "core", some DMs probably feel it makes it harder for them to control what new material gets used in a campaign.  Especially with the "core" label, because sometimes there's a connotation to that that says, "This isn't optional".   Early 3e rules didn't feel like that to me, since there was an approach which said, "here's a bunch of stuff a DM can pick from to add to his campaign".  However, when 4e releases a whole series of Core Rulebooks, it feels like there's an expectation to some people that the DM will make room for whatever the players want to use in their campaigns, and they don't like that.


----------



## MACLARREN (May 30, 2010)

There are great aspects of all editions of D&D and other RPG's out there in the market today.  As someone earlier in this thread has mentioned, I don't know if there is a system that is perfect and we all try to house rule to make the systems for what works in each or our own perspectives.  We stick more to the D20 based systems and have even delved in to playing 4e for 2 marathon sessions.  We found that that game was not for us, however, we did find certain aspects from 4e that were very good and that did make sense as well.

So with what we wanted, we decided we were going to build what we termed 5e.  This went on for about 2 months.  Group of 8 solid gamers that all have been playing for at least 20 years and everyone is exceptional players and knows the rules.  The debating and starting with no base to build it from, created a lot of unwanted pain so we pulled the plug on it as some peoples opinions felt slighted in the process and took things personally in the design and best for us to do.  Good move for us.

So, we played a Conan campaign for about 10 levels until we made a decision to change after ending that campaign.  Conan allowed us to develop a feeling of playing that we termed "fast and loose."  The rules are there for guidelines and think outside the box and work together to determine how to make something out of the ordinary work.  You have to have a lot of trust in the DM to roll with the punches but knowing that  rules don't cover it all was a start and DM and players working together i best outcome when the rules fall apart.  There was also frustration with 3.5 and 4e magic with our DM and some of the players.  In our opinion, spells that always seemed to take away what other classes could do neutered the need for those classes (IE- Knock).  We also did not like spells that gave all the answers the easy way.  So Conan was a nice fix while we thought about things and we utilized active defense with armor as DR, Parry, Dodge, and AP values for weapons.  We all thought we would hate it at first but grew to love it.  So, now time to go back to drawing board.

We decide we want to reevaluate, so we determine why not take that which we like from everything we know and form it into the house ruled game we like?  We based our new game on 3.5, PF, Trailblazer, Conan and 4e taking parts of each to build it.  We also based it in Midnight setting that is modified for a reason that good Clerics do exist with ties to celestial beings that were trapped in the world when Izzy won and the old gods disappeared.  Short simple explanation here but way more to it and I run the cleric that is tough as I am always a liability.

So here is what we developed:

Action Points- TB style and yes we were all skeptical here but combat reactions work in play

Classes- TB for most part and we developed a Marshal that is awesome.  Ranger has 3 paths-the TB TWF, Archer, Sirmisher (Scout from 3.5) and can I say that  Fighter is like a crack cocaine addiction to play and in line.  

Skills- PF

Feats- PF but modified due to Armor as DR, etc

Combat- Conan (DR, AP, Active defense, Parry Dodge, weapon values), PF- CMD and CMB for Grapple etc. 

Spells- PF (descriptions) 4e Templates for simplicity and 4e ideas on save ends spells but not with a 10 or higher, spells that attack require attack and defense rolls, conditions updated and more condition options (Magic Missile still hits without roll)  Trailblazer spell lists, spell levels for multiclassing and 10 minute rests to gain back Rote spells.  Use encounter (simple), Controlled (goes until extended rest), and ritual spells instead of round or minute durations.  Use PF spell descriptions.  Heal spells are gone for most part as the 10 minute rest allows you to regain Hp's but no real way to gain them in combat but Armor as DR is counter.  No scrying, teleport or easy way to do things.  May find ways sometime but not from the get go.

Monsters and DM- 4e philosophy to most degree.  They do not follow same rules as us and lots of work to DM in trust here.  Ours has always balanced things somehow.  Our CR's have always been about 3 levels above what is recommended so he balances things on his own and on the fly.  It works for us and we don't know every monster stat or what we are up agains which adds to the fun IMO.

There is way more to it and what is nice is, we have one book compiled with all of our rolls i that is about 225 pages and we only reference it at the table.  Played one 3 day session with it and our game has finally come around to the type of game we all enjoy.  Lets just say, the fighter will shine at all levels as well as all classes.  House ruling has worked for us but may not for you.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2010)

Orius said:


> Different issue IMO.  When WotC labels something "official" or "core", some DMs probably feel it makes it harder for them to control what new material gets used in a campaign.  Especially with the "core" label, because sometimes there's a connotation to that that says, "This isn't optional".



Except that the DM could have said "This is not in my game" to anything from the 3e Core too. No spellcasters (or whatever) for instance. No halfings or gnomes. Anything in the 3e core was optional too. 



> However, when 4e releases a whole series of Core Rulebooks, _it feels like there's an expectation to some people that the DM will make room for whatever the players want to use in their campaigns_, and they don't like that.



Emphasis mine.

Honestly, I believe a DM should be doing that because *that's what the player wants to play*. It doesn't matter if it comes from a core or non core or whatever - if the DM's campaign is so inflexible that he won't make room for what a player wants, then I'd have to make a value judgment about that DM. It's the players' campaign too.

The caveat here is that things are omitted for stylistic/tone choices. Sure, a DM saying no to a light hearted prankster gnome in a RAVENLOFT game makes sense because it fits the tone of the game. Or if he thinks it's broken or will disrupt his game, by all means. But if the DM is just excluding or unwilling to make room because either 1) he just doesn't like that Thing, or 2) can't or won't think of a way that fits in his world... that's A Problem with the DM, not the material, IMO. 

Almost anything, with enough care, can be slipped into any setting.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 30, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Except that the DM could have said "This is not in my game" to anything from the 3e Core too. No spellcasters (or whatever) for instance. No halfings or gnomes. Anything in the 3e core was optional too.
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> ...




There are certain things that do just not fit into some settings. It is the responsibility of the players and the DM to be on the same page about what type of game a particular campaign will be.

If the DM suggests running a Hyborean campaign, the players like the idea and then one of them shows up with a warforged paladin, then I don't think the problem is with the DM.


----------



## Mark Hope (May 30, 2010)

I've always seen a distintion between "official" supplements and houserules.  I'd say there were three levels at play here: core rules, supplements and house rules.  I think it's all down to personal definitions, though - for some folks the inclusion/exclusion of a supplement might be deemed a house rule.  For others, it's not.  We would always decide on which core rules, supplements and house rules were in use in any game, viewing each separately.

I house rule.  A lot.  Always have done.  And (moreso with the d20 era) I use supplements and 3rd-party material a lot.  My current D&D game is Pathfinder for core, with stuff from 3.5, Conan d20, Malhavoc, Necromancer Games, and Green Ronin all thrown into the mix, in addition to a bunch of house rules.  It's a glorious mish-mash of stuff that gives us the kind of play experience that we want.

As for Ari's original post, I felt kinda sad for him reading it.  I've been there - been worried about whether things are balanced or not - and moved on from it as soon as I started to feel it cramping my creative freedom.  The freedom to go wild is part of what makes DMing a joy for me and I'd hate to feel like I had to hold myself to some imagined standard, particularly if that standard made me feel like I couldn't cut loose when I wanted to.  Balance has its place, to be sure, but as DMs we need to be able to step out of bounds and fly by the seat of our pants.  For me at least, that feeling of "no safety net" is kinda exhilarating.  I'd hate to lose it.

I'll echo the poster (forgot who - sorry!) who suggested aiming for a little looser feel in your home games and catching some of that clear air again.  Who knows, it might bleed over into your published work, and for the better .


----------



## Henry (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Knowledge of a media may prevent you from enjoying the lowest common denominator of that media, but what it grants you is the ability to appreciate things which are better.




True, but by the same token it almost emotes pity from me when I see a doctor who can't enjoy House, MD or E.R., or a Nascar Driver who can't enjoy a Speed Racer cartoon without critiquing them.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2010)

Henry said:


> True, but by the same token it almost emotes pity from me when I see a doctor who can't enjoy House, MD or E.R., or a Nascar Driver who can't enjoy a Speed Racer cartoon without critiquing them.



IME, usually it's the professional who just doesn't want to pursue fiction relating to their field. I know an ME who just doesn't enjoy forensic fiction because it feels too much like work.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> But you are missing the point.  Whether you want to call the  mechanics "magical" or not 4E is still a type of supernatural superhero  world, a very very specific artificial genre which doesn't really relate  to anything outside of the RPG / MMORPG / comic book subculture.  Battleminds and Runepriests and paragon class powers don't show up in History, mythology, literature or cinema that I'm aware of.  I don't see any Teiflings in Kirosawa Samurai flicks or in the Arabian knights or Robert E Howard or Jack Vance or the Icelandic Sagas or the Ring of the Nibelungenleid.



I don't see any deadly Jello cubes, beholders or rust monsters in Kurosawa, to be fair.

Which parts of 4e are from comic books? Note that the shambling mound and the soulknife, both pre-4e, are from Marvel comics. A very small portion of 4e is mmorpg inspired - role names, disenchantable magic items, phased monster fights, possibly the stickier tanks. In some very important respects - no need for a dedicated healer, less Xmas tree - 4e is the least mmorpg-y version of D&D. Tieflings are in Conan though they aren't called that. A battlemind is just a guy with both psionic and physical abilities, and those have been in D&D since forever. The runepriest has a somewhat Norse flavour.

D&D has always been its own genre. The magic system is useless if you want the magic of Elric or Earthsea or that of any mythology. If you want non-Vancian, then you have to do it yourself. Nothing in literature or myth resembles the classic D&D mega-dungeon. No stories have the sheer quantity and variety of monsters, weirdness and magic that the typical D&D adventure possesses. D&D is the game where a pre-Roman Celtic druid, a paladin of Charlemagne, Cugel the Clever and Caine from Kung Fu team up to fight Man-Thing from Marvel comics, Harryhausen skeletons, Tolkien's orcs and something from an episode of Space:1999. Most fiction has a single protagonist, often with one or more sidekicks, not the D&D party of half-a-dozen or so roughly equal protagonists. Gray Mouser and Fafrhd, the Argonauts and the Fellowship of the Ring are rare exceptions. Because of the risk of PC death by RAW, D&D isn't very good at simulating the epic quest style of fiction. It's more suited to short sword & sorcery type stuff. Gold for xp in 1e is tied to the representation of Conan and Cugel, not LotR or Elric.

Possibly the weirdest thing about D&D is the level track. At low levels, PCs die very easily, in fact far more frequently than any fictional protagonist. At high levels, D&D is a crazy monster-beset magic carpet ride of resurrection and teleportation. Both extremes are very rare in fiction and folklore. The progression itself is unique, as far as I am aware.


----------



## BryonD (May 30, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Honestly, I believe a DM should be doing that because *that's what the player wants to play*. It doesn't matter if it comes from a core or non core or whatever - if the DM's campaign is so inflexible that he won't make room for what a player wants, then I'd have to make a value judgment about that DM. It's the players' campaign too.



If the DM sucks, then allowing or disallowing stuff makes no difference.
If the DM rocks and the player just can't think of anything that actually fits within the framework of the campaign, then I'd have to make a value judgment about that player.

If this is an impasse then the player and DM should not be in the same group.

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in playing in an anything goes campaign.  A one shot, sure.  But I want some suggestion of a cohesive story and setting.  Not everyone plays that way.  Cool.  But suggesting that wanting to play that way is a sign of inflexibility is pretty absurd.  

No.  Wolverine is not allowed in my Game of Thrones campaign.  Nor is your Frost Giant Warlock.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 30, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Honestly, I believe a DM should be doing that because *that's what the player wants to play*. It doesn't matter if it comes from a core or non core or whatever - if the DM's campaign is so inflexible that he won't make room for what a player wants, then I'd have to make a value judgment about that DM. It's the players' campaign too.




Perhaps. And if the campaign was just running a bunch of home-brewed series of adventures, I would agree with you.

But does your answer change if the GM wants to drop $250 bucks on _Rise of the Runelords_, with all its associated bells and whistles? And you, as a player, propose to use _Book of Nine Swords_, _Tome of Magic_, _Spell Compendium_ and the _Magic Item Compendium, _while some other players then ask to play classes and races out of all of the _Complete_ and _Races of _Series?

Because I assure you, in those circumstances, what you propose to do will break the published adventures into a million pieces. Your uber-powered characters will blow through the _Rise of the Runelords_, as written. The published Adventure Path just _breaks_ under the power creep.

The only way that doesn't happen is if the GM wants to then put a _*lot*_ of work into beefing up and redesigning the set-piece encounters across all six volumes of _RotRL_. (And then ncompensate for addtional XP earned in beefed up encounters, and so on and so forth, with a chain reaction of consequences across six volumes of adventures...)

As it stands, there is already a *LOT* of work involved in running and creating other bridge and side material for use during the play of an Adventure Path.  Your proposal as a player greatly adds to the GM's burden of running that AP. So much so that I, as a GM, would just outright veto it.

So the "my game too" argument, while true, doesn't really capture the practical problems that such desires really cause. It's not just a matter of "taste, touch and feel".

It's not just a matter of fluff; *it's stone cold crunch we're talking about here*. 

You can't hand wave this stuff away; it matters.


----------



## BryonD (May 30, 2010)

Henry said:


> True, but by the same token it almost emotes pity from me when I see a doctor who can't enjoy House, MD or E.R., or a Nascar Driver who can't enjoy a Speed Racer cartoon without critiquing them.



Have either of these ever actually happened to you?

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and a background that includes analytical lab work.  My wife has a great deal of lab experience ranging from analyst to manager.  

We both really enjoy NCIS and think Abby is a great character.  In reality it would take teams of people days or even weeks to do things she does simultaneously in hours or less.  Its absurd.  It is also great fun.

But if anything remotely close to that happened in a gritty supposedly realistic crime movie were to occur, it would probably detract from my enjoyment.  The context is very important.

Extrapolating to experiences I don't actually have, I'd think that a skilled doctor may find some degree of issue with ER, but only to a small extent.  House, on the other hand, uses a lot of medical facade, but in the end is a fictional super sleuth (Sherlock Holmes) in a hospital.  I'd bet the ability to completely ignore the hand waving is just as easy for the doctor watching House as me watching NCIS.  Same for a skilled driver watching Speed Racer.  

Context is everything.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 30, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Have either of these ever actually happened to you?




Yes, actually. As a lawyer, I can't stand most legal dramas on TV as a consequence. Some of them are ok. Glenn Close's _Damages_, for example, comes to mind as one of the best ( but then it reminds me of why I got out of practice in a big firm in the first place .) 

But in the main, they drive me nuts. It's distracting and I have difficulty swallowing the premise, when the premise makes little sense. My wife feels the same way about medical dramas -- for the same reason. 

A few years back when I was hip deep on the technical side of making computing games, I was driven to distraction while trying to play them. The game is trying to do something dramatic and immersive, and I'm distracted by their polycounts, lighting engine effects and wanting to pause the game to look at their textures.

It's just the way it is.

If you listened to Ronald D. Moore's podcasts concerning _Battlestar Galactica_, he made it very clear that his technical knowledge and involvement in the business of "one hour drama" gets in the way of his enjoyment of TV.  A thorough knowledge of sets, budgets and what the constraints of the budget and production flow place upon a one hour drama script drives knowledgeable people to distraction too.  They usually know what's going to happen next -- because they know what a show can and can't afford to do.  

As a rule, when it comes to enjoying packaged entertainment, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

A discussion of this blog post goes on on therpgsite. I posted there, I copy-paste here -please pardon the fact but it saves up time.

"
_The "problem" _["problem" here is intended as the game's challenge(s) -while clear in context of the original thread I cant copy paste the whole original discussion over here]_ can be  anything of interest. It does not have to be an encounter. But it should  exist and it should be interesting. This means that players should have  the possibility of a number of distinctly different but desirable game  outcomes -which will be based on their individual choices and thus  "personalized". 
So, what I am saying is that the game's design goal should be about  guiding GMs to be creating interesting problems. This can happen by  design by creating clear limits and rewards to player characters for the  GM to handle. Why for the GM? Simply because players are not meant to  handle their own limits or rewards while both limits and rewards have to  work in tandem with each other if they are to work at all for the game  to take place.

This on contrast to Wotc which seems to think that it is not about GMs  but about players. It tries to offer the "problem" directly to players  by focusing its design goals on player character building. Why? IMO  because this way it is easier to commercially succeed towards selling  product as a tabletop rpg. So after a certain point 3.x's design came at  odds with extensive GMing in a smooth way. In 4e they created a game  where they simplified the scope of the game to a board tactical game so  that the GM does only have to play out the strictly similar encounter  monster pawns and free-form what happens in between. They sort of made a  game that does neither help nor creates difficulties for a GM due to  the game's own design. While it wants to sell to roleplayers, I am not  sure 4e, at its design level, wants to be a roleplaying game. It just  wants to be an "encounter" game and offer inspiring fluff for GMs to  want to GMer by their freeform capabilities._ 
"


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> It's not just a matter of fluff; *it's stone cold crunch we're talking  about here*.
> 
> You can't hand wave this stuff away; it matters.



*You* are talking about crunch, maybe. But that is not what I am talking about, and crunch is unrelated to what I was responding to. *In fact*, I said this in the paragraph right after the one you quoted:



> The caveat here... Or if he thinks  it's broken or will disrupt his game, by all means.



Edit: Adjusted to be less... emphatic.

As a side note, I think that the ToM classes are mechanically weak compared to other classes. If later books had power creep, then the power tide receded and left barren sand in ToM's case. Which is a shame, because I wanted to marry the Binder and have its children. The same with the Archivist.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2010)

Deleted.


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> Those concepts were in the game, but you didn't _have_ to live in the midst of them unless you wanted to.  In my game it was just "you stumbled into a hole, roll the dice to see if you fall in" and you can look at the chart or not look at the chart.  You don't _need_ to have a stack of poker chips or cards or miniatures to keep track of your buff or your healing surges or whatever, and you don't _have_ to play on a battlemap etc.



 Having a battlemap for 3.x allowed you to answer a lot of questions:
- "Am I flanking?"
- "Who is in the area of this Fireball spell?"
- "Can I use the bonus from my Point Blank Shot feat?"
- "Do I have cover from this attack?"

Using a battlemap in 4e is just about as useful as it was in 3e. I'm sure you can get by without one, but the mechanics used to really encourage using one, and they still do.

I dunno what you're talking about with respect to falling in a hole: in my experience, the battlemap was always for tactical *combat*, nothing more.



Galloglaich said:


> Yes and there has been a disconnect on that (cure light wounds anyone) since the first edition of the game.  The concept is still all kinds of broken... if it is just a "fatigue surge" maybe they should call it that   Personally I think it comes from computer games.



 Actually I think you'll find that video games stole the whole idea of HP from D&D, starting with Gauntlet. But that's a topic for another thread.

IMHO healing surges make no less sense than HP did originally, and that's all I'll ever claim about them. I'll make the same claim for SWSE's abstract condition track, too.

I'm NOT claiming that HP make perfect sense -- I'm always of at least two minds about how to interpret HP damage -- but I can't deny that HP make for a good game, and the exact same arguments that have always been used to justify HP work for healing surges.



Galloglaich said:


> I had issues with 3.5 power creep thing they are talking about in the other part of the thread as well.  And I like history, literature, mythology, martial arts, and I like to put these elements into my game.  I really honestly can't see any way to do that in 4E.   To do it in 3.X i had to make my own game, but it was at least possible.  When they started making it so hard-wired to a specific play style (and got rid of OGL) I got annoyed.
> 
> Basically I want DnD to be a more flexible game so you can play it  lot  of different ways... like a horror movie or like a Jack Vance novel or like an Icelandic Saga or a Lovecraft story.



 Well, coming from a fully mature, well-explored system like 3e, it's true that 4e looked rather barren. But IMHO that's just because we had 10 years to explore and augment 3e.

But I strongly disagree that it's impossible or even difficult to run a wide variety of games in 4e. My group generally runs 4e as a nasty, gritty S&S setting just by mostly ignoring Rituals.

- - -

Now, we can have a discussion about the ways in which it's harder to augment 4e than it was to augment 3e -- and vice-versa -- but I'm not going to accept that either is rigid, inflexible, or impossible to house-rule.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Not worth carrying...




You are obviously referring to my post. If you did want to quote my message, I believe it pretty much stands by its own over here so you are welcome to elaborate on what you are thinking about it. I posted in this thread, over here, because I wanted people over here to see my opinion on the matter, not to direct traffic at that other thread. In fact, if you have to say something about my message indeed, you should do so, since claiming willingness to comment but restrain to do it due to some unsubstantial external reason is not something I can accept. Otherwise I have it that you more or less agree with what I am saying and you are referring to something that got your attention on that other thread which has nothing to do with my own message? 
Please clarify this.
Thanks


----------



## The Little Raven (May 30, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> Personally I think it comes from computer games.




Then you should be able to easily name a video game that has a healing surge mechanic (a separate pool of "health" that directly limits how much healing you can take before having to take a break from action).

I can't recall anyone ever making this claim actually coming up with an example to back it up.


----------



## Primal (May 30, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Jason & Paris were demigods?  That's a new one for me.  The fact that they are in literature and that I can have a swords & sorcery game that emulates that literature was my point.
> 
> Something that was claimed as impossible.
> 
> Close but no cigar...




If you ask me, NO edition of D&D models or emulates literature very well. There are other games better suited for that purpose.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Having a battlemap for 3.x allowed you to answer a lot of questions:
> - "Am I flanking?"
> - "Who is in the area of this Fireball spell?"
> - "Can I use the bonus from my Point Blank Shot feat?"
> ...




The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. I am talking about "things" like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2010)

xechnao said:


> The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. Things like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.



 What does 4e need the battlemap for *other than* combat?

We've played lots of scenes without one -- do tell me what we were doing wrong.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> What does 4e need the battlemap for *other than* combat?
> 
> We've played lots of scenes without one -- do tell me what we were doing wrong.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




What? What do 4e mechanics cover besides 4e battlemap encounters -aka what you mean by combat-? For 4e's mechanics and the goal to optimize them, "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay is obviously something around the 4e battlemap encounters. I touched this on the post I quoted from that other board. Unless you were trying to make a point I did not get.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2010)

D&D has always stolen from current pop culture sources around it.  Gary nabbed the Monk from the show _Kung Fu_ and Psionics from _Firestarter_. Gary even made up monsters (umber hulk, rust monster) based on cheap toys he found in stores. There was no apology about it. 



Doug McCrae said:


> Possibly the weirdest thing about D&D is the level track. At low levels, PCs die very easily, in fact far more frequently than any fictional protagonist. At high levels, D&D is a crazy monster-beset magic carpet ride of resurrection and teleportation. Both extremes are very rare in fiction and folklore. The progression itself is unique, as far as I am aware.



Not to mention the _speed_ of that track. 

That a farmboy who picks up his father's sword can be fighting gods in the span of a few months if he adventures nonstop, which many groups do. 

... What does any of this have to do with Houserules again? Why are we arguing editions again?


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2010)

xechnao said:


> What? What do 4e mechanics cover besides 4e battlemap encounters -aka what you mean by combat-? For 4e's mechanics and the goal to optimize them, "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay is obviously something around the 4e battlemap encounters. I touched this on the post I quoted from that other board. Unless you were trying to make a point I did not get.



 I have no idea what you're trying to say with a vague term like  '"D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay', and I guess we weren't on the same page regarding what you meant in your first post either.

Start a new thread, maybe. This stuff sounds far more like an edition rant than anything to do with the topic of house rules.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2010)

xechnao said:


> You are obviously referring to my post.




No, I was referring to other stuff in that thread, not to your post specifically.

I also deleted the comment; please respect that.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> No, I was referring to other stuff in that thread, not to your post specifically.
> 
> I also deleted the comment; please respect that.




So what are you saying you want me to do? Now that you have cleared up what you intended to comment on first place it is very clear that it was just a potential misunderstanding from my part. Isn't it?


----------



## Mark Hope (May 30, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Not to mention the _speed_ of that track.
> 
> That a farmboy who picks up his father's sword can be fighting gods in the span of a few months if he adventures nonstop, which many groups do.
> 
> ...




Well, to get it vaguely back onto house-rules, slowing the rate of xp acquisition is a house-rule that we toyed with from time to time, for exactly the reasons you're mentioning here.  A campaign that takes characters from farmboys to godslayers in mere months of game-time has a certain appeal, but at the same time we found it strained belief.  If you want to have a game that allows characters to grow into greatness over the course of their lives, while still adventuring regularly, you need to do something about how they acquire xp.  Pathfinder has a "slow xp" option, something that has been used in the past.  There's also the angle that you can do away with xp entirely and just level the PCs when you want them to level.  This kind of thing, imho, goes right to the heart of the discussion, in that you're abandoning balance and doing it "by the book" in order to craft a specific feel for your game.  You could take it to the point of not even giving balanced xp awards to the PCs at all, but just levelling them as and when you see fit.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say with a vague term like  '"D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay', and I guess we weren't on the same page regarding what you meant in your first post either.
> 
> Start a new thread, maybe. This stuff sounds far more like an edition rant than anything to do with the topic of house rules.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I addressed something and you replied back. Perhaps I did not get what you were trying to say but anyway I believe I was trying to make my case clear. In fact your mood seemed like passive-aggressive to me, but it really does not matter. Now, while you still fail to reply to my argument you say that I thread crap with an edition rant -and ironically my comment was about your comment of using 3.x edition in front of 4e criticism. This is weaseling to me.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Jason & Paris were demigods? That's a new one for me. The fact that they are in literature and that I can have a swords & sorcery game that emulates that literature was my point.
> 
> Something that was claimed as impossible.
> 
> Close but no cigar...




Actually aren't you talking mythology as opposed to swords & sorcery?

One of the things I find that kills S&S gaming for me with 4e (besides a non-gritty feel to the mechanics)... is the underlying focus on team-based tactics. S&S vary rarely, if at all, features a party of diverse characters who must work together to overcome challenges. S&S is the genre of heroes, who may choose to work together, but are fully capable of handling a multitude of challenges on their own... I don't find this at all to be the type of style 4e encourages and sometimes it feels as if it even forces an oposite style on the group. I guess this is one of the reasons I found 3.x/Pathfinder to be a better engine for S&S as far as this aspect was concerned. YMMV and all that of course.


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2010)

xechnao said:


> I addressed something and you replied back. Perhaps I did not get what you were trying to say but anyway I believe I was trying to make my case clear. In fact your mood seemed like passive-aggressive to me, but it really does not matter. Now, while you still fail to reply to my argument you say that I thread crap with an edition rant -and ironically my comment was about your comment of using 3.x edition in front of 4e criticism. This is weaseling to me.



 Like I said above: I'm happy to discuss how 3e and 4e differ regarding house ruling, and I've got a bit of experience with that.

What I'm not willing to do is participate in a flat-out edition war. They're boring.

If you characterize yourself as a thread-crapper, that just reinforces my desire to NOT participate in your topic derailment.

Ciao, -- N


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2010)

Henry said:


> True, but by the same token it almost emotes pity from me when I see a doctor who can't enjoy House, MD or E.R., or a Nascar Driver who can't enjoy a Speed Racer cartoon without critiquing them.



 Cartoons & prime-time network stuff sure sounds "lowest common denominator" to me.

Hmm, I wonder if -- in the Future -- we'll see entertainment tailored to specific professions and/or skill sets. Like, a medical show where the writers assume the entire audience has a working knowledge of anatomy, drug effects, and so forth.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Like I said above: I'm happy to discuss how 3e and 4e differ regarding house ruling, and I've got a bit of experience with that.
> 
> What I'm not willing to do is participate in a flat-out edition war. They're boring.
> 
> ...




Ahh ok, whatever. could have been as you say. 
Now if you please respond to what the "other than combat", "lots of scenes" and "doing it wrong" meant. And yeah, in thread context as you say: 4e and house ruling and all that.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 30, 2010)

*but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap*

4E does not focus "its whole gameplay" on the battlemap. Example: Skill Challenges.


----------



## BryonD (May 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Cartoons & prime-time network stuff sure sounds "lowest common denominator" to me.



yep...



> Hmm, I wonder if -- in the Future -- we'll see entertainment tailored to specific professions and/or skill sets. Like, a medical show where the writers assume the entire audience has a working knowledge of anatomy, drug effects, and so forth.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Interesting thought.  In a handful of decades we have come from three networks to having a Golf Channel.  If the next 50 years were to hold that pace then it would be pretty precise.


----------



## BryonD (May 30, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Yes, actually. As a lawyer, I can't stand most legal dramas on TV as a consequence. Some of them are ok. Glenn Close's _Damages_, for example, comes to mind as one of the best ( but then it reminds me of why I got out of practice in a big firm in the first place .)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As a rule, when it comes to enjoying packaged entertainment, ignorance is bliss.




Right, but I think you are being consistent with my position here. 
Legal dramas tend to try to present themselves as realistic.  
You may be an exception, and I certainly won't speak for you, but I'd be willing to wager that you may dislike a very well written law drama due to your knowledge of the legal process, but you would probably find it much easier to enjoy an equally well written and possibly even less plausible legal drama if that show featured blatant larger than life or even supernatural elements.  
And if you are an exception, then ok, you are an exception.  I'll still stick to my generalization.

As I said, context is everything.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> Example: Skill Challenges.




You cant really be saying that. Skill challenges are... ermm...a total failure of game design and by such they do not worth anyone's time and money that just do not want to give them away towards Wotc due to reasons other than skill challenges. There are many internet threads on the failure of skill challenges that if you insist I could quote them here or on another thread.

But your quote over here helped me to see that perhaps l need to clarify what I was saying there in case I wasn't clear. If that be the case, I am really sorry. 
So, I wasn't talking about things other than 4e's encounters and their tactically intended gameplay. I was talking exactly about that. I was trying to say that you could rather optimize gameplay for group combat-encounter tactics in more functional and comprehensive ways than designing for a battlemap. This is what 4e is trying to achieve, right- -combat tactics on balanced roles regarding their need for contribution-?


----------



## Klaus (May 30, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> IMO, this is the crux of the thing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's part and parcel of being a creator.

If you're a film director, you'll never see a movie without thinking of pacing, camera placement, etc.

If you work in Advertising, you'll never look at an ad without thinking if the message is getting across clearly, if the font is adequate, etc.

If you work as a game designer, you learn to spot broken rules. By "broken" I don't just mean "overpowered", but also rules that will be a pain to keep track of at the table, or that have unclear definitons, etc.


----------



## Klaus (May 30, 2010)

xechnao said:


> You cant really be saying that. Skill challenges are... ermm...a total failure of game design and by such they do not worth anyone's time and money that just do not want to give them away towards Wotc due to reasons other than skill challenges. There are many internet threads on the failure of skill challenges that if you insist I could quote them here or on another thread.
> 
> But your quote over here helped me to see that perhaps l need to clarify what I was saying there in case I wasn't clear. If that be the case, I am really sorry.
> So, I wasn't talking about things other than 4e's encounters and their tactically intended gameplay. I was talking exactly about that. I was trying to say that you could rather optimize gameplay for group combat-encounter tactics in more functional and comprehensive ways than designing for a battlemap. This is what 4e is trying to achieve, right- -combat tactics on balanced roles regarding their need for contribution-?



If you think Skill Challenges are a failure, you need to read Mearl's Ruling Skill Challenge series in Dungeon. He sets up several kickass SC, including one that is an adventure all by itself.

Dungeon adventures like "Remains of the Empire" and "Dead by Dawn" have some of the best SC yet, and I'm told HS1: Slaying Stone also has that.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 30, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hey, I have an idea. How about we _not_ turn this into an edition war thread?





This bears repeating, I think.


----------



## Lanefan (May 30, 2010)

Mark Hope said:


> Well, to get it vaguely back onto house-rules, slowing the rate of xp acquisition is a house-rule that we toyed with from time to time, for exactly the reasons you're mentioning here.  A campaign that takes characters from farmboys to godslayers in mere months of game-time has a certain appeal, but at the same time we found it strained belief.  If you want to have a game that allows characters to grow into greatness over the course of their lives, while still adventuring regularly, you need to do something about how they acquire xp.  Pathfinder has a "slow xp" option, something that has been used in the past.  There's also the angle that you can do away with xp entirely and just level the PCs when you want them to level.  This kind of thing, imho, goes right to the heart of the discussion, in that you're abandoning balance and doing it "by the book" in order to craft a specific feel for your game.  You could take it to the point of not even giving balanced xp awards to the PCs at all, but just levelling them as and when you see fit.



There's various other ways to achieve the same thing; of slowing down the level advance speed with respect to time in the game world.

The simplest, for lower-level parties, is travel time.  Don't have one adventure waiting right around the corner from the next.  Separate them by enough distance that it's going to take a few months or more to get from one to the next.  "Isle of Dread" is a good example: if you set it up such that it takes a 3-month boat trip to get there (and of course another 3 months to get back) then the party has only gained a level or two in half a year...or longer, if you manage to throw some delays in their way.  Best thing is, this doesn't even need any house rules to achieve!

Next-easiest is enforced down-time between adventures.  There's three obvious ways of achieving this:

1. Training.  This requires house rules post 1e.
2. Treasury division.  If it's made difficult to divide treasure (e.g. need to travel to get items identified, find buyers/sellers, etc.) that can eat up time.  Needs house rules mostly in terms of campaign flavour.
3. Rest and recovery.  Requires house rules; but make it that someone needs a certain amount of stress-reduced 'downtime' between adventures in order to remain sane, functional, etc.

And last but not least there's slowing the advancement rate, either by reducing the amount of ExP given out or increasing the distance between bump points on the advancement table(s). (or in 1e removing ExP for g.p.)  This becomes a houserule in every version except - from what I'm reading here - Pathfinder, where I'm led to believe it's an official option (and good on 'em for it, if true).  Be warned that over time this has a very significant knock-on effect, particularly in 3-4e where such things matter more: unless you really Grinch the treasure (which is no fun for anybody) the characters become too rich.

In our 1e games this last is what we've done, character wealth be damned; and it's taken the overall advancement rate down to about a level or two per in-game year.  Some individual characters go faster, others slower, depending on a host of things, but the average is surprisingly consistent over multiple campaigns with different DMs.  And while we have training requirements, there's sometimes very little downtime between adventures - that said, sometimes they can spend half a game-year completing an adventure anyway, so it all works out. 

Lan-"10 levels in about 12 game years and 26 real years - slow but sure"-efan


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

Klaus said:


> If you think Skill Challenges are a failure, you need to read Mearl's Ruling Skill Challenge series in Dungeon. He sets up several kickass SC, including one that is an adventure all by itself.
> 
> Dungeon adventures like "Remains of the Empire" and "Dead by Dawn" have some of the best SC yet, and I'm told HS1: Slaying Stone also has that.




While this deserves its own thread Mearls contribution has nothing to do with a solid skill challenge mechanic that any DM could just use and pull off what Mearls did. A GM and players can pull off themselves a full fledged combat encounter by just using only the provided rules of the game and understanding how they work. And they can do this in theory for many different encounters -the aspect in the design for achieving this sort of thing does exist- even if implementation sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Mark Hope (May 30, 2010)

Great ideas Lanefan.  I used travel time back in the days of 1e more than now, but it's a factor in my current PF game.  Training times, item creation times - these also pay into the slowing of advancement.  There are ways to deal with the treasure issue as well.  I think that 4e does something about having non-treasure rewards (don't know as I don't play it).  We use a system of bonus feats (inspired by Conan d20's favoured class rules) to offset the effects of less treasure.  We're also playing in a pseudo-bronze age setting, so getting an iron or fine steel sword is a Big Deal, never mind magic (6th level and still no magic weapons, heh).  All good houseruley fun .


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

wtf, when people have something to criticize on 4e it must be about  edition wars. 

Sure some of it could not be directly replying on the topic of the thread at hand but couldn't it be that 4e's design itself is responsible for  many debatable matters such as possibilities of gaming and  game-mastering? 

By invoking "edition wars" and calling people on that you simply destroy this sort of discussion.


----------



## D'karr (May 30, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Actually aren't you talking mythology as opposed to swords & sorcery?




Nope, I meant exactly what I said.  I'm running a Swords & Sorcery themed campaign using Ancient Greek mythology as a backdrop.  The minotaur, Medusa, the Oracle of Delphi, all integrated into the setting.  Yes of course it has mythology included, and all kinds of weird interventions by the gods in the affairs of men.



> One of the things I find that kills S&S gaming for me with 4e (besides a non-gritty feel to the mechanics)... is the underlying focus on team-based tactics. S&S vary rarely, if at all, features a party of diverse characters who must work together to overcome challenges. S&S is the genre of heroes, who may choose to work together, but are fully capable of handling a multitude of challenges on their own... I don't find this at all to be the type of style 4e encourages and sometimes it feels as if it even forces an oposite style on the group. I guess this is one of the reasons I found 3.x/Pathfinder to be a better engine for S&S as far as this aspect was concerned. YMMV and all that of course.




Sorry but I have 7 players, if I wanted lone wolves and catering to them, I'd drastically decrease the size of the player pool.  Yes, some Sword and Sorcery STORIES have a single protagonist.  It doesn't mean that you can't have more of an ensemble.  Self-limiting because of that aspect seems silly to me.  I find no problem with using 4e to play a Sword & Sorcery themed game as I said.  Oh, and I have no problem implementing House Rules for that game either.  I have a few, but they are minimal.  When I played 1e, I didn't necessarily have many House Rules either.  YMMV.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 30, 2010)

xechnao said:


> wtf, when people have something to criticize on 4e it must be about  edition wars.
> 
> Sure some of it could not be directly replying on the topic of the thread at hand but couldn't it be that 4e's design itself is responsible for  many debatable matters such as possibilities of gaming and  game-mastering?
> 
> By invoking "edition wars" and calling people on that you simply destroy this sort of discussion.



Look you said that all 4E gameplay is based on the battlemat. When I pointed out that was incorrect, with jut one example, instead of saying 'oh you are right' you just slagged SCs. That is not discussion, saying that I should seriously not consider a major (1 of every 3 'encounters' in my 4E campaign) as an example because you and the internet can provide negative press about it is not discussion. That is abuse which leads to hurt feelings. 

SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.


----------



## Lanefan (May 30, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.



Oh, I don't know...while my 4e-fu isn't what it could be I'd still hazard a guess that a dismal failure on a diplomacy check would lead straight to the battlemat, dice in hand! 

Lanefan


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> Look you said that all 4E gameplay is based on the battlemat. When I pointed out that was incorrect, with jut one example, instead of saying 'oh you are right' you just slagged SCs. That is not discussion, saying that I should seriously not consider a major (1 of every 3 'encounters' in my 4E campaign) as an example because you and the internet can provide negative press about it is not discussion. That is abuse which leads to hurt feelings.
> 
> SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.




I really, in context of this discussion, do not care about what happens in your campaign specifically and no one should. What this discussion cares about is what is written on the D&D books and what these books provide us with.
You cant be possibly calling me for abuse on criticizing SC on their objective design merits.  
When I am trying to discuss about a game's design or generally about a game and its merits as a game in front of what game design is capable of it is the sort of the objective discussion points I have in mind to expect to discuss about in the thread. Your subjective experiences may be in contrast to them but this does not mean that while you, without being able to make an objective argument about it, we should somehow be able to try to be objective without coming at odds with your subjective experiences.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 31, 2010)

OK I'll leave it there, not getting far are we?


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 31, 2010)

Klaus said:


> If you think Skill Challenges are a failure, you need to read Mearl's Ruling Skill Challenge series in Dungeon. He sets up several kickass SC, including one that is an adventure all by itself.



I agree. I used Mearls' example of a Epic Split-the-Party Skill Challenge and ran an entire game session - about five hours, implementing a Skill Challenge arising out of a 100 story  building being knocked down in a terrorist style attack during a _Star Wars: SE game_. It worked very well.  Every player got their own and I was literally running six skill challenges at once.  It was relatively tightly scripted and probably does not look much like a traditional 4E skill challenge. Point is: it worked well.

So while I don't play 4E. I would agree with your vieew completely. The Skill Challenge mechanic is extremely adaptable and is easily backwards compatible to bolt on to _Pathfinder_  or 3.5 -- as has already been done with _Star Wars: SE _in _Galaxy of Intrigue_.

ENWorlder The_Gneech  has already done this by adapting the Skill Challenge chart used in _Galaxy of Intrigue_ for use in _Pathfinder_ play. The thread and the Skill Challenge chart for use in PFRPG is here.

Now, I don't think the problem with Skill Challenges is the idea, or the mechanic. There were some problems with the mechanics in DMG1, but those have been addressed.

I think the bigger problems with the whole concept was in the early day of 4E's release where people were complaining that the Skill Challenge system was being used as a round-robin to justify why your highest skill was the best way to get by the locked door.

There were some complaints, some criticism and some scornful dismissals from a lot of people. I think a substantial part of that initial reaction was well deserved.

But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. What was needed was to re-examine the mechanics and the examples of how Skill Challenges should be used and try again.

I though Mearl's columns in Dungeon Mag to DDI subscribers concerning Skill Challenges have been brilliant. It's regrettable that they are only open to those who have DDI. I think his columns would go a long way towards convincing people running 3.x or _Pathfinder_ that there is something there worth considering to add on to their own games.

I don't disagree with anyone dissing Skill Challenges with how a lot of them were implemented after the immediate release of 4E. That implementation was fully deserving of some disrespect.

But I do disagree with it now and I urge some non-4E players to keep an open mind. They really can work and work well.


----------



## xechnao (May 31, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> "You cant really be saying that. Skill challenges are... ermm...a total failure of game design and by such they do not worth anyone's time and money that just do not want to give them away towards Wotc due to reasons other than skill challenges. There are many internet threads on the failure of skill challenges that if you insist I could quote them here or on another thread."
> 
> No not subjective at all. I am glad that you put me straight that SCs are objectively (post errata, pre errata I'll give you that) a failure.
> 
> 4E does not need a battlemap for all it's gameplay




Listen, by keep repeating that "4e does not need...etch" you insult my intelligence. SC are really irrelevant to 4e's design. They designed 4e encounter mechanics and rules and then they saw how they could fit something like SCs. 4e is really nothing without its encounter mechanics. While it is what it is even without SCs. 

And SCs are a failure. Primarily, errata has nothing to do with it. They do not fail just at implementation: they fail at their design goal. SCs as designed could never provide a mechanical way to do what they wanted them to do. Which is to provide to the GM solid possibilities for creating interesting "problems" for the group to solve in a cooperative fashion where everyone needs to participate.
But even if you want to say that they were not meant for this -but rather just as mathematical guidelines, they still fail at their mathematical design premise which is the DM to be able to control with a D20 rng the difficulties and success rates of various possible SC efforts. Neither the DM nor the players can control the knowledge of the difficulties without assistance from some software where you have to input all the possible SC scenarios and let it spell out the probabilities for you. And this not for every SC but rather for every SC roll as with every roll things change. The latest thread I can remember about SC fundamental and core design is this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17278&highlight=challenges+frank

EDIT: I am not contrary to SC design goal. In fact I think it is a valid one. Only that you cant achieve it by just using SCs the way they are designed.

Here is what I am thinking it could possibly be done on merits of their design goal:

From previous posts I have made on a couple of forums:
_
" If they wanted skill checks to be more like  combat they should have introduced more effects; not rolls. 

In each combat round the groundwork and mechanics of the following and  their interactions are detailed: 

losing time 
losing hit points 
losing other resources 
losing action freedoms 

winning time 
winning opposition 
winning loot/resources 
winning XP and thus new action possibilities for the future 

So, if they wanted to make skill challenges more gamist they should have  builded some structures to offer this kind of gamist relations. Which  is very difficult since skills are much more specialized and much more  incompatible with each other than melee combat actions. 

...

__What they really wanted to do with skill  challenges is that more players than one would got involved in a gamist  way with skills. What they should have done to achieve this is to give a  formal resource structure to players that would play out when skills  come into play. Which is almost impossible to do for the reason  mentioned on a paragraph above regarding skill incompatibilities. "_

And

_"__What could help here is an indicator of how the group fairs, similarly  of how combat has its own indicators. But what indicator could this be? I  cant think of any suitable right now. 

OTOH, what it comes to my mind is something that has to do with levels.  You get a number of assigning your own bonuses based on your level. Say  if you are level 1 you can only put your bonuses in a task specifically  focused by the skills you have but at higher levels you can distribute  the bonuses you have due to your skill knowledge in broader situations.  In this kind of model players do know before hand what you can try to  do. Perhaps skills and skill challenges  could better be designed -regarding their gameplay goals- skills in such  a frame and way."

_

Just my lazy SC contribution lol


----------



## Njall (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> *The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap*. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. I am talking about "things" like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.




Sorry, but can you provide some examples? Because I don't think this is true. 
There's a reason most generals use visual aids to  study and explain their strategies, there's a reason coaches usually use a blackboard to show their strategies and formations to the team, there's a reason why we have maps of the world rather than lengthy description of where the Rocky Mountains are, and there's a reason why games like Risk or Chess are so successful: 
the reason is that there's nothing that's as intuitive and as simple as a visual aid when you're dealing with positioning, and positioning is a significant aspect of tactics.
Now, I can see that some people might not like miniatures and maps in the context of an RPG: that's fine, and that's a matter of taste,  but I simply can't agree with your premise, because the assumption you're making is debatable at best and plain wrong at worst.

Back on topic: I create and use far less house rules since 4e came out, so in a way I agree with Ari. On the other hand, while I think that adding a new game element to D&D nowadays is not as easy as used to be ( especially if we're dealing with classes and magic items ), I find that I end up making  up in combat far more often than I used to. 
So I guess than rather than killing my ability to houserule altogether, 4e shifted the focus of my houseruling


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 31, 2010)

*Post removed. Insulting people gets you suspended. Please don't do it. ~ Piratecat*


----------



## xechnao (May 31, 2010)

Njall said:


> Sorry, but can you provide some examples? Because I don't think this is true.
> There's a reason most generals use visual aids to  study and explain their strategies, there's a reason coaches usually use a blackboard to show their strategies and formations to the team, there's a reason why we have maps of the world rather than lengthy description of where the Rocky Mountains are, and there's a reason why games like Risk or Chess are so successful:
> the reason is that there's nothing that's as intuitive and as simple as a visual aid when you're dealing with positioning, and positioning is a significant aspect of tactics.
> Now, I can see that some people might not like miniatures and maps in the context of an RPG,  but I simply can't agree with your premise, because what you wrote is debatable at best and plain wrong at worst.




They do use maps because they already have the preconception of how things play out and what their guidelines may mean in regards to that. So to them they sort of help them win time on communicating their message. They do not take turns but act realtime. In tabletop rpgs people do take turns and having to track your position on the battlemap for every possible action is totally at odds with their utility in the real world since the combination of battlemap plus taking turns has so many limits that tends to ruin many of real time possibilities. For certain things turns may be okay, such as for strategic combat that takes place on long periods of time but not for active tactical dynamics where people clash with swords.

I will not give any examples over here even because I am trying to design this sort of thing myself lol. At somepoint, when I feel comfortable enough and have the time I will post some of the design aspects at some other thread.


----------



## xechnao (May 31, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Wow. Look - without putting too fine a point on it? I read what you posted, I read the link you pointed us to, and neither of you have kept up with the changes, neither of you have read Mike Mearls recent articles, neither of you understand how the skill challenge  framework can be made to work, and neither of you -- clearly and demonstrably -- have read Rodney Thompson's treatment of Skill Challenges in _Galaxy Of Intrigue._
> 
> In short: *Epic Fail*.
> 
> I don't even LIKE 4E and I can tell you're not playing with a full deck on this one.




So cause I have no DDI subsription and I have not read RT's article I am an epic fail? Well, I provided my poor thoughts on how something like SCs could work. Do not know if you did read it cause I edited it in that post you have been quoting me after a while I made it first place.
I wont buy a DDI subscription just to check a Mearl's article.


----------



## Njall (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> They do use maps because they already have the preconception of how things play out and what their guidelines may mean in regards to that. So to them they sort of help them win time on communicating their message. They do not take turns but act realtime. In tabletop rpgs people do take turns and having to track your position on the battlemap for every possible action is totally at odds with their utility in the real world since the combination of battlemap plus taking turns has so many limits that tends to ruin many of real time possibilities. For certain things turns may be okay, such as for strategic combat that takes place on long periods of time but not for active tactical dynamics.
> 
> I will not give any examples over here even because I am trying to design this sort of thing myself lol. At somepoint, when I feel comfortable enough and have the time I will post some of the design aspects at some other thread.




If you manage to create something of the sort, please share it! It should be interesting,even revolutionary 
On the other hand, you'll have to excuse me if I can't take your statement at face value until then, but if I said something to the effect of "it's a fact that people can live forever" and, when asked "how?",I replied "well, I'm working on it" it wouldn't be a very compelling argument


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I don't see any deadly Jello cubes, beholders or rust monsters in Kurosawa, to be fair.




Yes, but you don't have to have anything like that in a DnD game, in the early versions, they were options.  I think somewhere along the line the idea that every creature in the Monster Manual - which I always saw as a resource so you could play different kinds of games- had to exist _together_ in the same world.  For a long time this was a trend in DnD, to merge everything together, it started in EGG's own 'greyhawk' and was raised to a high art in forgotten realms.  It may well have been the most popular way to play the game, but you were never _forced _to buy into it.  You could still play the game other ways.  With 3.0 and 3.5 they started forcing some of these kinds of expectations into the game when the balance obsession and player empowerment were increasingly built into the rules, and houseruling increasingly forced out.  



> Which parts of 4e are from comic books?




I really don't want to make this into an edition wars argument, because we both know that is pointless.  My point is, per the blog, it's clear that the mutability of DnD has been vastly restricted over time, regardless of specific editions.  And the assumptions of one specific way of playing have become much more dominant.  As someone who never played with those particular assumptions, never had comic book stuff in any of my games and didn't mix genres, I find myself now left out.  As an industry writer, I find myself unable (and uninterested) to contribute in any way to the current version of DnD because the system is essentially closed to the way I play now, which seems to be completely unnecessary.  I don't think DnD should be a niche game.



> D&D has always been its own genre. The magic system is useless if you want the magic of Elric or Earthsea or that of any mythology.




Not if you are still free to houserule and use various supplmenents, I know there were Elric and Fafhred supplements going way back (how good they were is another issue).  If you want to mix up Perseus and Thor and Fafhred and Elric and Charlemagne in the same campaign, I think you should be able to do that, it's a game after all play it however you like.  If I want to have a more genre specific game with a high level of immersion and plausibility, and play without chits, cards, miniatures or maps, I should be able to do that too.  I don't like that the door has been closed.



> Possibly the weirdest thing about D&D is the level track. At low levels, PCs die very easily, in fact far more frequently than any fictional protagonist. At high levels, D&D is a crazy monster-beset magic carpet ride of resurrection and teleportation. Both extremes are very rare in fiction and folklore. The progression itself is unique, as far as I am aware.




I think the game always had a sweet spot at mid-low levels, say 4- 8 but that is one of the reasons I always houseruled and eventually published my own stuff to change some factors of that like level progression, the spell list and (especially) combat. and thereby flatten that arc out a little bit.

Also people died all the time in Elric and Conan and Dying Earth bra.

G.


----------



## xechnao (May 31, 2010)

Njall said:


> If you manage to create something of the sort, please share it! It should be interesting,even revolutionary
> On the other hand, you'll have to excuse me if I can't take your statement at face value until then, but if I said something to the effect of "it's a fact that people can live forever" and, when asked "how?",I replied "well, I'm working on it" it wouldn't be a very compelling argument




No prob. So are you saying that if I manage to pull something of this sort it could be the equivalent of finding out how to live forever? Nah, it is a lot more mundane than that and hardly I believe anything revolutionary. A bunch of games I am aware of have taken some shots at ideas of this kind although I am sure no game ever intended to make this way something  as focused and complete on melee combat as 4e tries to do.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. I am talking about "things" like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.




I designed a combat system for OGL specifically so I wouldn't have to use battlemaps or miniatures.  I don't mind in the least that some people want them, I don't like them and feel they kill immersion for me and my group.  If I have to get some paper and pencil out to illustrate something that is particularly hard to visualize or even once in a while stack some dice up to show positions for a second, I will, but I don't want to play that particular way and I definitely don't want to deal with chips for healing surges or powers or any of that kind of thing.  

So the bottom line for me is whether the game still lets me play 'accoutrements-lite' or 'accoutrements-heavy'.  I think it has clearly become the latter - mandatory.  

G.


----------



## Nifft (May 31, 2010)

Klaus said:


> It's part and parcel of being a creator.
> 
> If you're a film director, you'll never see a movie without thinking of pacing, camera placement, etc.
> 
> ...



 IMHO, this is no sad thing. It's glorious to be able to look at a rule and say, "Wow, that's a very nice take on this issue", before you play through that rule hundreds of times.

The filmmaker can appreciate great camera work for the technique it uses to evoke its effect. The naive audience can appreciate the evoked effect. Both appreciate good work. There's nothing lost by enhancing one's education, and there is something gained.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Njall said:


> Sorry, but can you provide some examples? *Because I don't think this is true. *
> There's a reason most generals use visual aids to  study and explain their strategies, there's a reason coaches usually use a blackboard to show their strategies and formations to the team, there's a reason why we have maps of the world rather than lengthy description of where the Rocky Mountains are, and there's a reason why games like Risk or Chess are so successful:




Yes but please remember, Risk and Chess, and the War-Games that generals play with, are all BOARD GAMES.  They are not role playing games.  

I played DnD and various other RPGs for 25 years, with a huge variety of different people from all walks of life, with punk rockers, martial artists, maritime workers, in the Army, in five different states and 3 different countries.  We didn't use miniatures ever.  I did meet a few people over the years who used them but it was a different style of play I didn't like so I never joined those games.  I never had trouble finding people who played the other way with a bare minimum of crap.  All you need to play a role playing game is maybe a couple of dice and some paper and a pencil.  And in a pinch you can skip the latter two.  I used maps when I played squad leader or axis and allies or risk, but not for Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia or DnD.  You don't need them.

I don't care in the least if you or 10,000 other people want to play role playing games kind of like a board game, hell I often imagine lot of RPG type fantasies when I'm playing board games myself.  But it's really creepy to me that so many gamers today can't even imagine how to play out a combat without a map.  And it's pandering to this particular attitude which created gaming systems which make it impossible to play without a map (and miniatures, and chips and cards and etc.) as a self fulfilling prophecy, pandering to a certain segment of the customer base at the expense of others.   And making a game which is closed off to a lot of the potential ROLE PLAYING game customer base as a result.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Njall said:


> If you manage to create something of the sort, please share it! It should be interesting,even revolutionary
> On the other hand, you'll have to excuse me if I can't take your statement at face value until then, but if I said something to the effect of "it's a fact that people can live forever" and, when asked "how?",I replied "well, I'm working on it" it wouldn't be a very compelling argument




Are you honestly saying they don't have RPG games that require a battle map to play out combat in?

G.


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> Yes, but you don't have to have anything like that in a DnD game, in the early versions, they were options.  I think somewhere along the line the idea that every creature in the Monster Manual - which I always saw as a resource so you could play different kinds of games- had to exist _together_ in the same world.  For a long time this was a trend in DnD, to merge everything together, it started in EGG's own 'greyhawk' and was raised to a high art in forgotten realms.  It may well have been the most popular way to play the game, but you were never _forced _to buy into it.  You could still play the game other ways.  With 3.0 and 3.5 they started forcing some of these kinds of expectations into the game when the balance obsession and player empowerment were increasingly built into the rules, and houseruling increasingly forced out.



I think you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that there's any such shift.  Granted, I don't really know much about 4th edition, but 3rd edition was the most mutable, houserule friendly system in the history of systems.  They even released the game with a specific license that allowed anyone to publish any houserule they wanted.  And they published an entire book that was nothing but a gigantic collection of houserules (_Unearthed Arcana_.)

If you think there's a shift, it's most likely an anecdotal perception on your part that is not necessarily shared by the community at large, and I doubt it'd be shared by the designers either.  I've never seen anyone demonstrate that this is true, and in fact the evidence I cited above certainly seems to demonstrate that the opposite is true.  


> I really don't want to make this into an edition wars argument, because we both know that is pointless.  My point is, per the blog, it's clear that the mutability of DnD has been vastly restricted over time, regardless of specific editions.  And the assumptions of one specific way of playing have become much more dominant.  As someone who never played with those particular assumptions, never had comic book stuff in any of my games and didn't mix genres, I find myself now left out.  As an industry writer, I find myself unable (and uninterested) to contribute in any way to the current version of DnD because the system is essentially closed to the way I play now, which seems to be completely unnecessary.  I don't think DnD should be a niche game.



Comic book, in this context, being equivalent to the widespread yet meaningless insulting buzzwords of the past such as "too anime" or "too video-gamey" or "too MMOish" or "dungeonpunk."

I think you should re-evaluate who's vision of D&D is niche and who's isn't.


> Not if you are still free to houserule and use various supplmenents, I know there were Elric and Fafhred supplements going way back (how good they were is another issue).  If you want to mix up Perseus and Thor and Fafhred and Elric and Charlemagne in the same campaign, I think you should be able to do that, it's a game after all play it however you like.  If I want to have a more genre specific game with a high level of immersion and plausibility, and play without chits, cards, miniatures or maps, I should be able to do that too.  I don't like that the door has been closed.



Maybe you could give some specific ways in which the door has been closed?  Again; I'm not really very familiar with 4e, but I have to admit I'm having a hard time envisioning any meaningful way in which any game could possibly exist with the door to houserules being closed.  With the obvious exception of video/computer games.


----------



## Njall (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> No prob. So are you saying that if I manage to pull something of this sort it could be the equivalent of finding out how to live forever?




Ehm, nope, my analogy was more along the lines of "if I state something that's not demostrably true, then I can't use it as a premise to make a point. That may change as soon as I'm able to provide a solid example". 
However, I still think that if you find a way to create a method that's simpler and more intuitive than a map it would have a huge impact on board/strategy games and, tangentially, RPGs.
However, the key here is "more intuitive, faster and simpler", not just different: I'm not arguing that there are other ways to create tactically interesting games and situations, I'm arguing that visual aids ( and, in this case, maps ) are usually easier to grasp and more intuitive, and thus, in this context, "better".


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> IMHO, this is no sad thing. It's glorious to be able to look at a rule and say, "Wow, that's a very nice take on this issue", before you play through that rule hundreds of times.
> 
> The filmmaker can appreciate great camera work for the technique it uses to evoke its effect. The naive audience can appreciate the evoked effect. Both appreciate good work. There's nothing lost by enhancing one's education, and there is something gained.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I agree, as a fencer I like when I see good fencing, whether in films (very rarely) or in other contexts.  As a game designer I like looking at well put together games.  I think this balance thing in the Blog which started this thread is a separate issue - it's an obsession which actually distorts the system so that it kind of suppresses good game play, which is not the sign of an elegant game-design feature IMO.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I think you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that there's any such shift.  Granted, I don't really know much about 4th edition, but 3rd edition was the most mutable, houserule friendly system




I think as some other people pointed out upthread, this was a trend between 3.0 and 3.5.



> If you think there's a shift, it's most likely an anecdotal perception on your part that is not necessarily shared by the community at large, and I doubt it'd be shared by the designers either.  I've never seen anyone demonstrate that this is true, and in fact the evidence I cited above certainly seems to demonstrate that the opposite is true.




To you perhaps.



> Comic book, in this context, being equivalent to the widespread yet meaningless insulting buzzwords of the past such as "too anime" or "too video-gamey" or "too MMOish" or "dungeonpunk."




You are taking insults, and bandying them back, where none were intended.  The emotional investment in game rules is bizarre to me.



> I think you should re-evaluate who's vision of D&D is niche and who's isn't.






> Maybe you could give some specific ways in which the door has been closed?




I did that once, it didn't go over well.  I'll stick to abstractions, comfortable that some people will understand what I'm getting at, some people won't, and some people may even get angry.  If I go any further into concrete detail I'm likely to have more of all three types of reactions but the third type is problematic for me since I am an industry writer.



> Again; I'm not really very familiar with 4e, but I have to admit I'm having a hard time envisioning any meaningful way in which any game could possibly exist with the door to houserules being closed.  With the obvious exception of video/computer games.




Well, rather than try to explain that myself, I'll refer you to the blog linked in the OP.  

G.


----------



## Njall (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> Are you honestly saying they don't have RPG games that require a battle map to play out combat in?
> 
> G.




Nope. As I wrote above, I'm not arguing the fact that there are different ways to encourage tactics in the context of a game. I'm saying that a visual representation is usually more intuitive, easier to grasp, often easier to manage for the DM (especially when you're dealing with large scale battles) and thus, in this context, simply better.


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> So cause I have no DDI subsription and I have not read RT's article I am an epic fail? Well, I provided my poor thoughts on how something like SCs could work. Do not know if you did read it cause I edited it in that post you have been quoting me after a while I made it first place.
> I wont buy a DDI subscription just to check a Mearl's article.



Fair enough, but the fact remains that skill challenges have been thought about, written about and explained substantially more since the time they were first introduced. 

Making statements about what skill challenges _*are*_ based on what they _*were*_ (i.e. without acknowledging how they have evolved since then) is what makes your posts seem jarring and perhaps even provocative (IMO, anyway).

While you are of course not required to keep up with developments in skill challenges (or to believe what posters who say that they have kept up with these developments tell you about skill challenges), perhaps it would be better to qualify that your impressions of skill challenges and your comments on them are based only on their initial presentation.


----------



## xechnao (May 31, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Fair enough, but the fact remains that skill challenges have been thought about, written about and explained substantially more since the time they were first introduced.
> 
> Making statements about what skill challenges _*are*_ based on what they _*were*_ (i.e. without acknowledging how they have evolved since then) is what makes your posts seem jarring and perhaps even provocative (IMO, anyway).
> 
> While you are of course not required to keep up with developments in skill challenges (or to believe what posters who say that they have kept up with these developments tell you about skill challenges), perhaps it would be better to qualify that your impressions of skill challenges and your comments on them are based only on their initial presentation.




I talked about some specific problems regarding SCs and their merit regarding the scarce value of SCs. Since no one tried to address this but spoke of changes instead you could rather address how they fixed these problems, if they did fix them or found a solution to their merits indeed. I know this is not perhaps the right thread to ask this but these sort of replies I am getting really begs the question.


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> I talked about some specific problems regarding SCs and their merit regarding the scarce value of SCs. Since no one tried to address this but spoke of changes instead you could rather address how they fixed these problems, if they did fix them or found a solution to their merits indeed. I know this is not perhaps the right thread to ask this but these sort of replies I am getting really begs the question.



Give me some time (maybe a day or so) to go through your posts and the stuff in Mearls' columns, and I'll start a new thread in the 4E forum to avoid derailing this one any further. I'll even give the new "Mention" feature a try to see if it will automatically inform you about it!

EDIT: Thread is up.


----------



## BryonD (May 31, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I think you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that there's any such shift.



I think if you gave someone who had never played either game before a PH and DMG for both 2E and 3E, they would come away with a much stronger implication that minis and a game board are presumed for 3E than for 2E.  This is not to say that they would not see the merits or some degree of presumption in 2E, nor to say that they would find it obligatory in 3E.  But the "shift" would be seen in a comparison of core systems.

That said.....







> Granted, I don't really know much about 4th edition, but 3rd edition was the most mutable, houserule friendly system in the history of systems.  They even released the game with a specific license that allowed anyone to publish any houserule they wanted.  And they published an entire book that was nothing but a gigantic collection of houserules (_Unearthed Arcana_.)



I agree with you completely here.  There is a big difference between looking at just the core "D&D" and the wider and richer universe of OGL / D20 / 3X.

3X is most certainly a highly adaptable system that can be easily played as a minis intensive game or as a completely mini free game.  I think the game experiences are very different with and without minis.  But neither is superior and there is nothing but good in the variety.


----------



## Rechan (May 31, 2010)

Don't just limit the discussion of SC to Mearls' columns. More has been written on SCs than any one topic of 4e. 

Hell, Critical Hits made a huge compilation of articles, examples, etc. And there are tons of examples and discussion on ENWorld alone.

But this all seems moot. Why is it there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with 4e and haven't played/don't play 4e talking about what it can and can't do, and how is that topical?


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> I think as some other people pointed out upthread, this was a trend between 3.0 and 3.5.



That completely fails to address *my* points, though.  _Unearthed Arcana_ was a 3.5 book, not a 3e book. 

You're trying to build a case that the game discouraged houserules while ignoring the elephant in the room of the biggest book of optional houserules suggestions ever published as actually an official product.

Headed up by the same designer who had the lead on the 3e to 3.5 transition, no less.

Again; elephant in the room.  If you ignore that, it's a bit hard to take your assertions very seriously.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> To you perhaps.



No, not really.  That's not an example of me using some vague, nebulous "feeling" I have, and then basing my entire argument on that.  It's based on the OGL and the 3.5 _Unearthed Arcana_ which really didn't have peers in any other edition of the game.  You can hardly make a claim that there was a significant shift to close the doors on houserules during the same era that more houserules were published--published! not just in some DM's binder--than at any time in history without looking like you really either don't know what you're talking about, or you've got some vested interest in spinning a story of the 3.5 era that isn't really true.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> You are taking insults, and bandying them back, where none were intended.  The emotional investment in game rules is bizarre to me.



Umm... wha?  I'm not insulted.  I'm just pointing out that your comment is another in the long litany of meaningless and insulting phrases that have been used to describe the game by a horde of folks who are emotionally invested in something else, can't quite put their fingers on what they don't like, so they make up vague aspersions like "video-gamey", "anime", "dungeonpunk" or, in your case, "too comic book."

You don't even make a cursory effort to describe how D&D is like a comic book, it's just a dismissive and derogatory claim that you make.  And from my point of view, its a bizarre claim anyway; comic books are clearly the successors of the "pulp aesthetic" in our society, and D&D was more built on the pulps than anything else.  A D&D that resembled a comic book would seem to be a feature not a bug.

And seriously; *my* emotional investment is bizarre to you?  Oddly enough, I feel the same way about you and your argument.  I have no emotional investment in the game.  Your emotionally driven and meaningfully vacuous slurs just get a virtual raised eyebrow.  There's no need to attempt further dismissiveness by falsely trying to link me to some kind of emotionalism.  All I'm asking for you to do is demonstrate an example or two of where your claims are coming from.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> I did that once, it didn't go over well.  I'll stick to abstractions, comfortable that some people will understand what I'm getting at, some people won't, and some people may even get angry.  If I go any further into concrete detail I'm likely to have more of all three types of reactions but the third type is problematic for me since I am an industry writer.



Please.  That's a pretty sad back-pedal, really.  Nobody's getting angry.  I just want to see how in the world these claims could possibly be backed up.  I want to see how in the world houserules have been "closed off" by WotC when they've actually bent over backwards to facilitate them in ways that were completely unprecedented.  I want to know what in the world you mean by calling the game "comic bookish".  Especially while saying that what you _want_ the game to be like is Conan, who very famously was a long-running comic book character.

I wonder, too, what you mean by being an "industry writer" and how much your career as such has been facilitated by the OGL. 

Which, in case that was too subtle, would make your complaints in this regard particularly ironic.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> Well, rather than try to explain that myself, I'll refer you to the blog linked in the OP.



We all read the blog in the OP.  That offers absolutely no explanation for anything that you've said, really.  It certainly doesn't address any of the specific clarifications I've asked for from you.

Rather, it appears as if you've done a drive by snark post or two and when asked (rather politely, so I don't know where your "angry" posts are coming from--just because I disagree with you and think that you're way off base doesn't mean that I'm in the least angry with what you're saying) to explain exactly what you mean by that, you fall back and say you can't or won't.  It certainly does give the impression that your initial assertions were... at best... poorly formulated to be so unable to withstand even a cursory bit of scrutiny.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Hobo said:


> You're trying to build a case that the game discouraged houserules while ignoring the elephant in the room of the biggest book of optional houserules suggestions ever published as actually an official product.




The OGL opened the door wife open of course, and yes _of course _they published lots of optional rules and splat books (though I didn't even know unearthed arcana were actually houserules... I never bought it since I wasn't interested in it) but as per the blog linked in the OP, even while the D20 explosion was happening, the balance obsession was tightening things up dramatically, making it more and more of a nuisance to make houserules for D20 let alone publish any.  The formula for what was acceptable had become much tighter partly because any change in the system had a huge cascading effect on all kinds of other parts of the game.

The fact that so many came out anyway is testament to the energy released by the OGL license (which is now closed for 4E), but the constraint was also there.  Basically in my opinion you were limited to a certain very specific _type _of rules which encouraged a very specific _type _of gameplay (for example using miniatures).  You had to accommodate player empowerment (can't make a magic item without a way for players to create it, cant have an encounter that is above their EL/CR) balance to the point that every class has to be 100% equal (which was an illusion since they never were, especially prestige classes).

(This wasn't a problem for me because I didn't play 3.X by the RAW, but it was a problem for a lot of people and a problem if you wanted to publish anything for D20)

In other words it's not that houserules were impossible, nor third party products since everyone knows that D20 created a huge overwhelming flood of material for the game (too much, it could be argued).  It's that the creative open-ended type of modifications had become more difficult, all the variation was inside a sort of cone from which 4E emerged.  And yes I'm aware this is a subjective opinion and I'm sure you will mathematically prove me wrong to the ninth decimal point.  You won't convince me any more than I can convince you.



> Again; elephant in the room.  If you ignore that, it's a bit hard to take your assertions very seriously.



I'm not getting the vibe you are really interested in my assertions, as opposed to just winning an argument.  Once one of these discussions reaches this level of vitriol online, I've yet to see anyone suddenly "see the light" or even actually seriously consider anything the other person is saying.  What you call 'vague and snarky insinuations' somebody else might just see as the inevitable subjective part of an argument.  

I don't want to go into huge detail because I know from experience that does spark even more crazy arguments, flame wars and edition wars, all of which I find incredibly tedious.  This conversation was pushing into edition wars territory first with 4E, now it's back to 3.5.  You really can't make any criticism of DnD in this forum without being assigned a whole slew of labels and annoying some fanatic fans of this or that edition.  They all have big problems in my opinion, so you can all hate me.



> you really either don't know what you're talking about, or you've got some vested interest in spinning a story of the 3.5 era that isn't really true.




Right, it's a conspiracy.  I work for Steve Jackson Games and I'm trying to convince everybody to hate DnD in this lone thread, and then move them all to GURPS.  If it wasn't for you meddling kids I would have gotten away with it too!



> Umm... wha?  I'm not insulted.  I'm just pointing out that your comment is another in the long litany of meaningless and insulting phrases




This seems rather contradictory.



> (snip) a horde of folks who are emotionally invested in something else, can't quite put their fingers on what they don't like, so they make up vague aspersions like "video-gamey", "anime", "dungeonpunk" or, in your case, "too comic book."




This sounds like you are trying to assign my arguments to somebody elses pattern, which since we are slinging around accusations of intellectual dishonesty here is a facile (if lazy) way of trying to dismiss them.



> You don't even make a cursory effort to describe how D&D is like a comic book, (snip)  A D&D that resembled a comic book would seem to be a feature not a bug.




I suspect this is the reason for your ire, you like comic books, and you detected an insult toward comics in my posts.  It's true, you busted me, I don't like comic books, and I really don't like superhero powers in fantasy RPGs.  And I'm certain you like a totally different type of game than I do.  That's fine with me.  I just think people should be able to play other ways, and sorry I don't think you can do that in a certain version which will not be named.



> Please.  That's a pretty sad back-pedal, really.  Nobody's getting angry.  I just want to see how in the world these claims could possibly be backed up.




Really?  Honestly?  You are seeking knowledge here?  You are out to learn something?



> ... explain exactly what you mean by that, you fall back and say you can't or won't.  It certainly does give the impression that your initial assertions were... at best... poorly formulated to be so unable to withstand even a cursory bit of scrutiny.




No, it's just that the discussion is tedious enough already, and once the posts get this long with this many quoted backs and forths most people reading the thread have tuned out already, and I've got zero chances of convincing you of anything, so it's all kind of pointless.  Don't you think?  We both have utter contempt for each others point of view, and we've made that clear.  I've said my piece, either some people will recognize what I'm saying or they won't.  I know you and I will never see eye to eye on anything and I'm ok with that.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> Then you should be able to easily name a video game that has a healing surge mechanic (a separate pool of "health" that directly limits how much healing you can take before having to take a break from action).
> 
> I can't recall anyone ever making this claim actually coming up with an example to back it up.




Seriously?  How about Duke Nukem.  Or Doom.  Or a gazillion other games.  

Your definition that it has to have all the specific features of the 4E healing surge may limit the scope, but what I (and many others) recognize is a quick way to suddenly gain your health points back so you can keep killing mooks even though you have gotten shot a hundred times yourself.  

This has a 'video gamey' feel to me yes there I said it.  I see a link.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Having a battlemap for 3.x allowed you to answer a lot of questions:
> - "Am I flanking?"
> - "Who is in the area of this Fireball spell?"
> - "Can I use the bonus from my Point Blank Shot feat?"
> - "Do I have cover from this attack?"




See if i had to rely on a map to answer any of those questions I would A) feel like I was too tired to DM, B) get bored and distracted and eat too many chips and cookies, C) get bogged down moving around things on a board and checking lines of sight and setting out little cones and disks and things to where I completely lost track that it was supposed to be a fight going on.  

To me combat should be really fast, immersive, and kind of scary.   I don't want my players pouring over a map for ten minutes before deciding when they are going to throw their fireball or from what angle they will shoot their bow.  I like games like that too, but that is what squad leader is for in my opinion.  Or car wars or something.  

For a role playing game, I like to describe the scene, and I as the DM may very well be looking at a map, a small map, but the players will be relying on my description (and often, I'll be riffing off of their questions) and together we make a scene that feels real and surprisingly often triggers real emotional / adrenaline responses similar to the way watching a horror movie does (or playing a real good first person shooter with some spooky or suspenseful elements to it, like say one of the old Alien Versus Predator games which I liked a lot)  Combat should be at least a _little bit_ confusing.  If you have ever been in a fight or even played paintball or something you probably know what I mean.  And you should be able to make judgement calls and sometimes just guesses and still make the game work.

I would answer all of the questions listed above based on common sense, and the rapport that I've built with my players which they have learned to trust that I'm not out to get them, and riff off of their ideas.  We aren't in an adversarial relationship, and they don't feel like they have to see behind the curtain of the great and powerful oz in order to trust that the game is going fairly (nor do I when I'm playing as a player in their game).  Hell I even still roll dice behind a DM screen sometimes.

I played Riddle of Steel with Jake Norwood the other day and we had a variety of some of the most exciting combat I ever played through in an RPG, and there wasn't a single miniature or map on the table.  I know some people like it better the other way with the maps and minis and everything, I have a good buddy who plays like that, but it aint the only way to do it mate.



G.


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> what I (and many others) recognize is a quick way to suddenly gain your health points back so you can keep killing mooks even though you have gotten shot a hundred times yourself.
> 
> This has a 'video gamey' feel to me yes there I said it.  I see a link.



You know, back in the day, we used to call things like these _cure light wounds_/_cure serious wounds_/_cure critical wounds_/_heal_/_potions of healing_/_potions of super-healing_.

Or do you feel that magical forms of hit point recovery are fine, but non-magical ones are "videogamey"?


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

FireLance said:


> You know, back in the day, we used to call things like these _cure light wounds_/_cure serious wounds_/_cure critical wounds_/_heal_/_potions of healing_/_potions of super-healing_.




I wasn't really ever a big fan of healing spells...



> Or do you feel that magical forms of hit point recovery are fine, but non-magical ones are "videogamey"?




... but frankly yes I just don't get how "non-magical" instant healing is even supposed to work, outside of comic book or video game logic.  In video games they don't really bother to explain much how the medikit or the glowing green dot heals you, it just does.  In comic books it's usually some mutant power or psionics or something.  

A priest casting spells, yes as hypocritical as it sounds doesn't bother me as much as a guy just making a constipation face and suddenly the arrows pop out of his back and he's better.  That really throws off my suspension of disbelief.   I don't feel like I'm reading Robert E. Howard or Jack Vance any more.  I don't even feel like I'm watching Evil Dead.  At least Ash spends some time to bandage his stump before he bolts the chainsaw on.  

I like a magical healing to be kind of a special, unusual thing, like all magic in my campaigns.  If it's extremely common it doesn't feel 'magical' to me.  Call me crazy.  And I never did understand cure light wounds though, how is a wound light or serious or critical based on your hit points, if you have 5 hit points a cure light wounds is a cure critical wounds isn't it?  

G.


----------



## Pig Champion (May 31, 2010)

I guess that's the trouble with pop-culture, it has a large sphere of influence. I understand why you hate these tropes Galloglaich, however for those very same reasons, I love them.


----------



## Nightson (May 31, 2010)

Hit points are an abstraction, they do not represent actual wounds your character has received in battle.  A player might have no scratches at 3/4 health, a nasty cut on his arm when he gets knocked back to half, same status at 1/4, and then when he hits zero someone pegs him with an arrow in the stomach.

When he spends a healing surge granted by something martial or his second wind, his wounds don't close and knit up, he keeps fighting even though he's got a nasty cut in his arm.  Maybe he gets up and fights even with an arrow in his gut.  Maybe the arrow was a less serious wound then was thought and it was the shock or pain that made him black out for a few seconds.


----------



## Galloglaich (May 31, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> I guess that's the trouble with pop-culture, it has a large sphere of influence. I understand why you hate these tropes Galloglaich, however for those very same reasons, I love them.




Actually I don't hate them, I just hate that the game is funneled into playing with those tropes and no longer is as open to other styles of playing (and trust me there are many, many others besides the one I described).  I think it's fine for other RPGs to become niche games, and I gather 4E is a fun game, I just think DnD is the 'gateway RPG' and should be open to a lot of different styles, especially a 'lite' style without a lot of extraneous kit.

Maybe in order for that to really work it has to be kind of broken I don't know, I don't really think so but then again I don't know how to design the perfect version of DnD either.

G.


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> but frankly yes I just don't get how "non-magical" instant healing is even supposed to work, outside of comic book or video game logic.  In video games they don't really bother to explain much how the medikit or the glowing green dot heals you, it just does.  In comic books it's usually some mutant power or psionics or something.



In a way, I agree with you. The term "hit point recovery" would have been a more accurate description of what is actually going on. I guess "healing" is used because it's shorter and covers most (though not all) cases of hit point recovery.


> A priest casting spells, yes as hypocritical as it sounds doesn't bother me as much as a guy just making a constipation face and suddenly the arrows pop out of his back and he's better.  That really throws off my suspension of disbelief.   I don't feel like I'm reading Robert E. Howard or Jack Vance any more.  I don't even feel like I'm watching Evil Dead.  At least Ash spends some time to bandage his stump before he bolts the chainsaw on.



So don't imagine the arrows popping out of his back. During combat, non-magical hit point recovery is a surge of adrenaline or encouragement from an ally which allows him to fight on despite his wounds. Outside of combat (spending healing surges during a short rest), hit point recovery is accomplished through bandaging wounds and restoring reserves of stamina.


> I like a magical healing to be kind of a special, unusual thing, like all magic in my campaigns.  If it's extremely common it doesn't feel 'magical' to me.  Call me crazy.  And I never did understand cure light wounds though, how is a wound light or serious or critical based on your hit points, if you have 5 hit points a cure light wounds is a cure critical wounds isn't it?



Yeah, we joked about cure "light" wounds back in the day, too. It was just one of those things we didn't think about too much while we were playing D&D. Just like we didn't think too much about why, even though magic was supposed to be rare and special, the party had an elf, a cleric and a magic-user, and about half a dozen magic items each.


----------



## Pig Champion (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> Actually I don't hate them, I just hate that the game is funneled into playing with those tropes and no longer is as open to other styles of playing (and trust me there are many, many others besides the one I described).  I think it's fine for other RPGs to become niche games, and I gather 4E is a fun game, I just think DnD is the 'gateway RPG' and should be open to a lot of different styles, especially a 'lite' style without a lot of extraneous kit.
> 
> Maybe in order for that to really work it has to be kind of broken I don't know, I don't really think so but then again I don't know how to design the perfect version of DnD either.
> 
> G.




I guess in that respect I empathize. I too wish DnD remained more open ended and lite. Alas it can never be because you have to keep funneling certain aesthetics to get new people into the game and keep the hobby alive.

Having said that, I think that's what houseruling is all about. Rejecting the inevitable aesthetics and substituting your own.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> the game's design goal should be about guiding GMs to be creating interesting problems.



I agree that this is a reasonable goal for the game's design. I think that "interesting" here has some sort of connection to "balance", in so far as two ways in which a problem can _fail_ to be interesting is if (i) it is obvious to the players that, within the parameters of the game, they have no way of solving it, or (ii) it is obvious to the players that the game-mechanical contribution that some of them are able to make towards solving the problem is irrelevant (or worse, non-existant).

This seems to me to leave a fair bit of room for potential house ruling. One house rule that I use in 4e is to allow a player to spend an action point during a skill challenge to make a secondary skill check in response to another player's failed check, as an immediate interrupt. This addresses both (i) and (ii) above: it increases the mechanical capacity of the players to resolve the problem, and it increases any given player's capacity to meaningfully contribute to the resolution of the problem.



xechnao said:


> This can happen by design by creating clear limits and rewards to player characters for the GM to handle. Why for the GM? Simply because players are not meant to handle their own limits or rewards while both limits and rewards have to work in tandem with each other if they are to work at all for the game to take place.



4e does this in more detail than any other mainstream RPG that I'm familiar with - encounter building guidelines, reward guidelines, rules for quest XPs and milestones, etc.

This is another place where there seems to me to be scope for house rules. For example, I give out total treasures in my game equal to the level-appropriate treasure parcels, but mix and match in various ways, and give out a lot of the cash parcels as magic items and ritual reagents instead. I also do a mixture of GM-chosen items, player "wish list" items and existing item upgrades. Part of my goal is to maintain balance in magic items among the players. Part of my goal is to increase verisimilitude - it is easier on the verisimilitude front to boost an existing item than to place yet another unransacked trove of goodies in the carrion crawler cave.



xechnao said:


> This on contrast to Wotc which seems to think that it is not about GMs but about players. It tries to offer the "problem" directly to players by focusing its design goals on player character building. Why? IMO  because this way it is easier to commercially succeed towards selling  product as a tabletop rpg.



Obviously WotC have an interest in selling books. But I think that this description of the theoretical implications, for the game, of their publishing strategy is flawed.

First, character building is often not about "addressing a problem" - it is typically a prelude to addressing a problem. Even where it can look like an immediate addressing of a problem - eg by choosing the Demonskin Adept paragon path I am immediately complicating things for my PC, by making some sort of connection to demons a very front-and-centre aspect of the character - the real action in addressing that problem will come out in play. 4e is no different in this respect from any other RPG.

Second, 4e is pretty typical of modern RPGs in making character build an important part of the game. Character build matters to games like HeroQuest, Dying Earth, Burning Wheel, etc. What distinguishes 4e is that character build is based neither on free-from descriptors (HeroQuest, chunks of Burning Wheel) nor a fairly pithy list of skills and attributes (Dying Earth, other chunks of Burning Wheel) but on long lists of feats and powers. This is obviously a design feature that supports WotC's publishing strategy. But at least in my experience, it doesn't get in the way of addressing problems through play. In fact, one feature of the 4e character build rules actually facilitates addressing problems through play while also helping WotC sell more books, namely, the retraining rules.

Personally, I find this a tricky area to house rule in. Like someone upthread (Nifft, mabye) said, it is easy enough to ban a few feats or powers that are obviously broken or otherwise unnecessary (like a lot of people, I don't allow the Expertise feats). And I had houseruled Careful Shot to be the same as the now-errata-ed version a long time from the beginning of the discussions about its mathematical inadequacy compared to Twin Strike. I also have created a few new feats, but with pretty simple bonuses. But I haven't tried designing new complex conditional feats, or new powers. I don't even design many monsters or monster powers, as I find the MMs have (so far) given me most of what I need.

But I think a lot of other 4e players and GMs are pretty comfortable house ruling monsters, powers, feats etc. I don't think it's especially hard in 4e, and I think the system is robust enough, and the basic design parameters clear enough, that it's going to be hard to wreck the game doing this sort of thing. And if a power or feat ends up being underpowerd, a player can always retrain into something better.



xechnao said:


> In 4e they created a game where they simplified the scope of the game to a board tactical game so that the GM does only have to play out the strictly similar encounter  monster pawns and free-form what happens in between. They sort of made a  game that does neither help nor creates difficulties for a GM due to the game's own design. While it wants to sell to roleplayers, I am not sure 4e, at its design level, wants to be a roleplaying game. It just wants to be an "encounter" game and offer inspiring fluff for GMs to want to GMer by their freeform capabilities.



I wonder whether this is based on much play experience with 4e. In my experience, (i) the "monster pawns" are not strictly similar in 4e, anymore than game elements are strictly similar in other RPGs; (ii) the playing out of exploration between encounters is slightly less free form than in other traditional RPGs, because of the interposition of the skill challenge mechanics for some of that (ie aspects of exploration become transformed into problems to be resolved game-mechanically); and (iii) I am pretty sure that the game wants to be a roleplaying game - both DMG and PHB have extensive discussions of roleplaying from both the player and the GM perspective, after all - and in using it as a roleplaying game I don't think I've been doing it wrong.

It's true that 4e doesn't have very robust mechanics that would link encounters via narrative logic of the sort found in more indie games like HeroQuest (with its pass/fail cycle, although DMG2 makes a half-hearted attempt to incorporate this into 4e). The most 4e has of this sort of thing is action points. But that is more than most traditional RPGs have. Traditional RPGs tend to link encounters either non-mechanically (ie via the emerging story) or via resource use-and-replenishing mechanics. In addition to action points, 4e uses both of these devices.

This is an area where 4e could probably be houseruled to advantage, but I haven't tried For example, I could imagine taking what the DMG2 says about the pass/fail cycle and trying to work it up into a more robust set of guidelines to interact with page 42. And I could imagine someone who was more interested in resource-linking than narrative-linking of encounters working out some long term rest and recovery mechanics. I think these could be pretty easy to implement (maybe modelled on the disease track) and unless the game feature a lot of timeline dependent adventures wouldn't be unbalancing.



xechnao said:


> You cant be possibly calling me for abuse on criticizing SC on their objective design merits.





xechnao said:


> While this deserves its own thread Mearls contribution has nothing to do with a solid skill challenge mechanic that any DM could just use and pull off what Mearls did. A GM and players can pull off themselves a full fledged combat encounter by just using only the provided rules of the game and understanding how they work. And they can do this in theory for many different encounters -the aspect in the design for achieving this sort of thing does exist- even if implementation sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.



I think it is generally accepted that the 4e rules do a better job of presenting the combat rules than the skill challenge rules. And I personally think that the skill challenge rules remain underdeveloped, especially when it comes to the combat/non-combat encounter interface. But I think your claim that no GM could successfully use the skill challenge rules as published is just false. I ran a successful chase-scene skill challenge in my second session GMing 4e. I just followed the rules stated in the books.

From the player’s point of view (PHB pp 179, 259):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.​
From the GM's point of view (DMG pp 72–75):

More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure…

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

You can also make use of the “DM’s best friend” rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check. Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​
To me, this text makes it pretty clear that skill challenges are to play out similar to conflict resolution mechanics in games like HeroQuest, Maelstrom, Dying Earth, Burning Wheel, etc. Very different from what D&D has traditionally done, but hardly revolutionary, let alone unplayable (putting to one side issues of mathematical errors that were quickly errata-ed).

I already gave an example earlier of how I was able to house rule the skill challenge mechanics in a way that (to date, at least) hasn't seemed to threaten game balance.


----------



## Lanefan (May 31, 2010)

Nightson said:


> Hit points are an abstraction, they do not represent actual wounds your character has received in battle.



Though there's a strong argument saying they should, at least to some extent...  







> A player might have no scratches at 3/4 health, a nasty cut on his arm when he gets knocked back to half, same status at 1/4, and then when he hits zero someone pegs him with an arrow in the stomach.



...which you pretty much nail right here.  Losing hit points would be mirrored in reality by accumulating nicks and scratches and bruises - and fatigue - until eventually the wounds become more serious as you get close to 0 h.p.


> When he spends a healing surge granted by something martial or his second wind, his wounds don't close and knit up, he keeps fighting even though he's got a nasty cut in his arm.  Maybe he gets up and fights even with an arrow in his gut.  Maybe the arrow was a less serious wound then was thought and it was the shock or pain that made him black out for a few seconds.



Non-magical remote healing makes no realistic sense if it's permanent; or at least I can't quite fathom it.  The examples you list here are all fine if the healing is *temporary* such that after the adrenaline surge or second wind wears off those hit points go away again as the fatigue kicks back in, but not if it's permanent.  An adrenaline surge will banish fatigue for a while but it won't close a cut or pull an arrow out of your arm, no matter what the rules say.

To close the wounds and remove the nicks and bruises requires magical curing, physical bandaging and care, a lengthy rest, or some combination of these.

Even the very term 'hit points' implies you lose them by getting hit hard enough for it to hurt...

Lan-"ouch"-efan


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Non-magical remote healing makes no realistic sense if it's permanent; or at least I can't quite fathom it.  The examples you list here are all fine if the healing is *temporary* such that after the adrenaline surge or second wind wears off those hit points go away again as the fatigue kicks back in, but not if it's permanent.  An adrenaline surge will banish fatigue for a while but it won't close a cut or pull an arrow out of your arm, no matter what the rules say.



I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that the problem is not non-magical hit point recovery pulling an arrow out of a character's arm, but the DM describing hit point loss as an arrow going through a character's arm in the first place. 


> Even the very term 'hit points' implies you lose them by getting hit hard enough for it to hurt...



Alternatively, _*just*_ dodging an attack (escaping with a _*minor*_ cut or wound) that would have killed you if it had actually hit.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 31, 2010)

FireLance said:


> In a way, I agree with you. The term "hit point recovery" would have been a more accurate description of what is actually going on. I guess "healing" is used because it's shorter and covers most (though not all) cases of hit point recovery.



Agreed. "Healing surge" was a poor choice of terms, since 4E really emphasizes the abstract nature of hit points. They don't represent physical wounds only, so "healing" really should not be involved in the terminology.


----------



## Nifft (May 31, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Agreed. "Healing surge" was a poor choice of terms, since 4E really emphasizes the abstract nature of hit points. They don't represent physical wounds only, so "healing" really should not be involved in the terminology.



 Recovery of HP has always been called "healing", even though HP themselves have never been well-defined.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Fifth Element (May 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Recovery of HP has always been called "healing", even though HP themselves have never been well-defined.



That's true, but 4E was the first edition to make non-magical healing standard.

Although hit points have always been abstract, you've largely been able to ignore that fact if you wanted to because the only sources of healing were divine magic and rest. In 4E, a warlord shouting at you gives you hit points. The abstract nature of hit points is much more front-and-centre, and difficult to ignore.


----------



## Nifft (May 31, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That's true, but 4E was the first edition to make non-magical healing standard.



 Mmm. Do you mean "... to make non-magical healing *fast*"? There have always been rules for non-magical healing, so far as I recall, but they worked on a much, much slower scale.



Fifth Element said:


> Although hit points have always been abstract, you've largely been able to ignore that fact if you wanted to because the only sources of healing were divine magic and rest. In 4E, a warlord shouting at you gives you hit points. The abstract nature of hit points is much more front-and-centre, and difficult to ignore.



 What about the 3.5e ToB:Bo9S healing maneuvers?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> What about the 3.5e ToB:Bo9S healing maneuvers?



While popular with some gamers (and criticized and vilified by certain _other_ gamers ), the Book of Nine Swords probably wouldn't be considered part of the "core" rules for most definitions of the term "core".


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> Seriously?  How about Duke Nukem.  Or Doom.  Or a gazillion other games.
> 
> Your definition that it has to have all the specific features of the 4E healing surge may limit the scope, but what I (and many others) recognize is a quick way to suddenly gain your health points back so you can keep killing mooks even though you have gotten shot a hundred times yourself.
> 
> ...




This is kind of funny as many hardcore videogame afficiandos (aka the guys who hang out and post blogs like we are doing here) point to HALO's self regenerative shield as a CLEAR difference between previous FPS and part of its success.

For the vast history of videogames, the STANDARD way to recover health (especially in videogames) was to have healing packs/stim pack/potions of healing/dedicated healing person/medic a.k.a the standard D&D method

Part of HALO's success many critics argue was removing that and moving towards the self regenerative method which has been duplicated endlessly.

Ironically...this LATTER method is seen as more "realistic" in videogame circles than the classic "break a barrel, find a healing potion".

Arguing that the two are the same would get you many a funny look in videogame websites/blogs as they produce two DIFFERENT effects in game play. It would be akin to someone arguing that 4e and 3e are the exact same games

(HALO, thanks to its self-regenerative shields was noted NOT to present as much turtling as say DOOM since players knowing that they could recover from injury by themselves were more likely to take chances and thus be aggressive)


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> The OGL opened the door wife open of course, and yes _of course _they published lots of optional rules and splat books (though I didn't even know unearthed arcana were actually houserules... I never bought it since I wasn't interested in it) but as per the blog linked in the OP, even while the D20 explosion was happening, the balance obsession was tightening things up dramatically, making it more and more of a nuisance to make houserules for D20 let alone publish any.  The formula for what was acceptable had become much tighter partly because any change in the system had a huge cascading effect on all kinds of other parts of the game.



So... in other words, house rules suffered because the expectation on how good those house rules had become was higher?

I guess I only see that as a problem if you had a habit of developing really bad house rules or something.

I've houseruled my 3.5 game so much that I hesitate to even call it D&D at all.  I never thought it was difficult, or a nuisance, or anything.

Apparently, neither did an awful lot of publishers who kept putting out alternate rules like crazy.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> In other words it's not that houserules were impossible, nor third party products since everyone knows that D20 created a huge overwhelming flood of material for the game (too much, it could be argued).  It's that the creative open-ended type of modifications had become more difficult, all the variation was inside a sort of cone from which 4E emerged.  And yes I'm aware this is a subjective opinion and I'm sure you will mathematically prove me wrong to the ninth decimal point.  You won't convince me any more than I can convince you.



I'm not interested in you proving me wrong or vice versa; I'm just curious if there's actually anything at all you can point at as an example of this.  Or if this is just an argument that you're _emotionally_ invested in for some reason.

See, for me, even for my subjective opinions I can at least describe how I arrived at them and why I have them.  For example, I strongly disagree with your assertions that house rules were difficult 3.5 because 1) I have an entire bookshelf full of, basically, house rules published by various sourced, both official and non, and 2) I've house ruled by game out the wazoo and found it absurdly simple to do so.

I'm especially curious how we come to the paradox that you admit to having plenty of house rules in your own game while simultaneously calling it a nuisance to houserule and something that WotC has discouraged.

The OP described a _*false pressure*_ to adhere to some kind of imaginary balance.  It's a psychological pressure based Mouseferatu's perceptions about balance in the game.  There's nothing about the game itself that requires that.  And the idea that "Oh, back in the day before we had balance and our games were crappier, things were better!  Now that we've discovered balance, suddenly I have no confidence to play around with the game because the balance is so fragile that I have to step on eggshells" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, frankly.  If you don't particularly value balance, then why are you so worried about it?  If you do value balance, then of course wouldn't you rather have a more balanced baseline to start from?  If you think 3.5's balance was illusory anyway, then why do you care?

Where did this false, psychological pressure to create ultimate balance with every single houserule come from?  Certainly, I've never felt it.  I don't believe anything inherent in the game itself caused it.  I was part of the same online community as everybody else during that age, and I didn't get it there either.

So, yeah--I'm honestly mystified as to the souce of this "balance pressure."


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> I'm not getting the vibe you are really interested in my assertions, as opposed to just winning an argument.  Once one of these discussions reaches this level of vitriol online, I've yet to see anyone suddenly "see the light" or even actually seriously consider anything the other person is saying.  What you call 'vague and snarky insinuations' somebody else might just see as the inevitable subjective part of an argument.



I'm not interested in winning any argument at all.  I don't even believe that we're arguing.  I'm just trying to drill down through your position and understand it, and move past the emotional assertions that don't actually demonstrate anything.  If you get that vibe, that's because you're overly defensive and emotionally invested in your position.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> I don't want to go into huge detail because I know from experience that does spark even more crazy arguments, flame wars and edition wars, all of which I find incredibly tedious.  This conversation was pushing into edition wars territory first with 4E, now it's back to 3.5.  You really can't make any criticism of DnD in this forum without being assigned a whole slew of labels and annoying some fanatic fans of this or that edition.  They all have big problems in my opinion, so you can all hate me.



I agree; they've all had big problems.  I've thrown up my hands with frustration with D&D more times than I can count.  Ironically, I think they may have many of the same problems that you think they have.

My solution to that is to houserule it into the shape I want it.  I've found it an easy thing to do, and had great success with it over the course of several campaigns.  You're solution to it is to tell me that what I've done many times successfully and easily is impossible.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> This seems rather contradictory.



It's not.  I can recognize a label as insulting and dismissive without being personally insulted by it.  Surely that's not a new idea to you?

Especially since I'm not a comic book, nor even really a comic book fan; why would _I_ be insulted by that particular insult?


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> This sounds like you are trying to assign my arguments to somebody elses pattern, which since we are slinging around accusations of intellectual dishonesty here is a facile (if lazy) way of trying to dismiss them.



No, it doesn't.  Go read it again if it's confused.

I admit that's the weakest part of my own post, where I start to tread into ascribing motive to you.  But something has to explain why you're making nonsensical assertions and getting really defensive about it when I call them nonsensical.  If it's not some kind of heavy emotional investment behind your opinions, then I'm at a loss as to what else it could be.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> I suspect this is the reason for your ire, you like comic books, and you detected an insult toward comics in my posts.  It's true, you busted me, I don't like comic books, and I really don't like superhero powers in fantasy RPGs.  And I'm certain you like a totally different type of game than I do.  That's fine with me.  I just think people should be able to play other ways, and sorry I don't think you can do that in a certain version which will not be named.



See, here, you're no longer off the rails anymore... you can't even see the track at all you're so far away from the rails.  No, I have no ire, I don't particularly like comic books, you have no idea what kind of game I like if you think I want a superhero D&D game.

And the notion that you're just a poor guy advocating gamer diversity and getting nothing from the current edition because it's just got it's One True Way™ is absurd.  And I've got the personal experience (mine and my friends) to back it up.  My 3.5 game is more like _Call of Cthulhu_ than it is comic book superheroes, and has been for the better part of 8 years.  I don't play 4e, but I know plenty of people who have a low fantasy sword & sorcery vibe to their 4e games, and in fact will swear up and down that 4e is easier to bang into that mold than any other version of D&D ever.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> No, it's just that the discussion is tedious enough already, and once the posts get this long with this many quoted backs and forths most people reading the thread have tuned out already, and I've got zero chances of convincing you of anything, so it's all kind of pointless.  Don't you think?



Yes, I do.  I didn't think this was a discussion about proselytizing, though.  Why does convincing each other of anything have to be a goal here?


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> We both have utter contempt for each others point of view, and we've made that clear.



I don't have contempt for your point of view, but thanks for letting me know how you feel about mine.  That certainly explains a fair amount of your tone.  See, all this time, I thought this was a virtual example of sitting on the back porch with a beer after sunset talking about gaming with some buddies.  Here, you are so emotionally invested in your position, which you can't even bother to frame or explain in a way that makes any sense, that you're going on as if this is some bitter argument between two people who feel contempt for each other.  We are so fundamentally not on the same page at all here.


			
				Galloglaich said:
			
		

> I've said my piece, either some people will recognize what I'm saying or they won't.  I know you and I will never see eye to eye on anything and I'm ok with that.



You haven't really said much of anything yet.  You've basically made three assertions, all three of which are ... poorly supported, to put it as charitably as I can manage.  Let me rephrase them as I understand them: 1) If your game is already well balanced, then it's difficult to houserule.  Houseruling only flourishes in a poorly balanced environment.  2) 3.5 and 4e are comic book superheroes games, and you can't possibly play the game any other way.  I certainly wish that I could!  3) Like-minded people will flock to this statement and understand it.

The ironic thing is that I'm probably one such like-minded person, with the exception that I've seen firsthand: 1) how easy it is to houserule, and how much houserules have flourished in official and unofficial publications, to say nothing of personal campaign websites and notes, and years and years of my own personal, successful campaigns which feature extensive houserules.  2) How easy it is to keep the game from become fantasy superheroes.  Heck, all you have to do is confine your gaming to certain levels.  Easiest houserule to implement I've ever heard of.


----------



## Desdichado (May 31, 2010)

Galloglaich said:


> ... but frankly yes I just don't get how "non-magical" instant healing is even supposed to work, outside of comic book or video game logic.  In video games they don't really bother to explain much how the medikit or the glowing green dot heals you, it just does.  In comic books it's usually some mutant power or psionics or something.



At least those bother to try and explain it.  How does it work in... say, pretty much every action movie where the hero is beat to within an inch of his life, suddenly gets a determined look on his face, and then gets up and continues fighting at full capacity with no other hint that he was ever wounded in the first place except maybe blood spots on his clothes if the continuity editor is on top of his job?

I think that's a much more likely source for that trope than video games.


----------



## BryonD (May 31, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> This is kind of funny as many hardcore videogame afficiandos (aka the guys who hang out and post blogs like we are doing here) point to HALO's self regenerative shield as a CLEAR difference between previous FPS and part of its success.
> 
> For the vast history of videogames, the STANDARD way to recover health (especially in videogames) was to have healing packs/stim pack/potions of healing/dedicated healing person/medic a.k.a the standard D&D method
> 
> ...



But he did not argue those two are the same.  He gave completely different examples which you choose to ignore and replace with your own example.  

If you want to submit that as a counter-example, then fine.  But trying to set it up as a straw man substitute for his actual point is silly.

No one ever claimed that video games were monolithic.  Pointing out an exception doesn't really contribute.

And, I would 100% agree that in a sci-fi type game having a technology based shield that recharges is far more "realistic" than finding a +20 health pot.  The idea of a belt of batteries that could be slammed into a shield system to instantly recover the shield power (surging it) makes total sense.

But if at some point in the game the character losses his shield, yet can continue slamming batteries into his own leg to recover, then that would be stupid.

If the Gamma World game includes healing surges to recover force shield devices, I will call that cool.  If the Gamma World game includes healing surges to recover hit points, I will call that lame.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Mmm. Do you mean "... to make non-magical healing *fast*"? There have always been rules for non-magical healing, so far as I recall, but they worked on a much, much slower scale.



Of course. My example clearly referred to on-the-battlefield instantaneous non-magical healing, not resting-for-a-week non-magical healing.



Nifft said:


> What about the 3.5e ToB:Bo9S healing maneuvers?



Once again, this is very easy to ignore when playing 3E since it's not in a core book.


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> If the Gamma World game includes healing surges to recover force shield devices, I will call that cool.  If the Gamma World game includes healing surges to recover hit points, I will call that lame



I dunno - "battery operated regeneration" sound like a decent mutation to me.


----------



## Nifft (May 31, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Once again, this is very easy to ignore when playing 3E since it's not in a core book.



 True. Also, it came late in the edition's published lifespan. Unlike the 3e Bard or the 4e Warlord, who gained non-Divine healing right out of the PHB.

But I think my point stands anyway: 4e isn't the first edition to include fast, "martial" healing. There was plenty of discussion about the nature of healing & HP back when Bo9S hit the shelves, and there's still plenty of that same discussion around 4e.

... and actually, I think it's just a continuation of the general discussion of the absurdity of HP dating back to 1e, where it was about "high level" characters who could walk away from a 100 ft. fall off a cliff, or who could laugh at ten guardsmen with crossbows leveled at their chests.

HP have always been rather absurd if you thought about them too hard.

"_Fearing the topic veering_", -- N


----------



## tyrlaan (May 31, 2010)

This was a much better read when it was actually on topic. 

I respectfully request folks do some thread forking and get this train back on the rails.


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But he did not argue those two are the same.  He gave completely different examples which you choose to ignore and replace with your own example.
> 
> .




Perhaps I didn't explain my point.

His "SPECIFIC" example were Duke Nuke'm and Doom as to what he saw as analogue to healing in 4e.

My point was that the type of healing in those early FPS is considered TOTALLY different to the regenerative health system in latter era FPS like HALO. 4e's healing system is MUCH closer to the regenerative method than the Duke Nukem/Doom method which basically use the classic model cribbed from the first nethack videogames, that of health/potion packs.

Indeed, there is many a discussion on hardcore videogame sites (aka the videogame equivalent to enworld) about which is better, what people prefer and what effect they have on the finished product as both a game and a world design ("roll vs role" so to speak).

Simply equating the two as being the same WOULD get you strange looks on videogame websites akin to arguing that BD&D is the exact same game as AD&D. (You should see the discussion about the nature of hitpoints on those boards...especially since 95% of the participants know only of D&D at best as having played it once or twice)

As an aside, HALO is "NOT" an exception. Most modern day FPS use this method, indeed, part of the reltaively new IP of Left 4 Dead's appeal was that it harkened back to the older days of FPS when games required Healthpacks and managing them..


----------



## Piratecat (May 31, 2010)

*Back on topic, please!*


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 31, 2010)

I'm pretty sure videogames got their concept of health and healing from D&D's hit points in the first place. So we can't go blaming videogames for that.

Hit points have never been realistic. But they weren't derived from fiction either, they're just supposed to be a playable, highly abstract way of representing injury. Dave Arneson actually got the idea (and armor class) from a civil war period naval ironclads game I believe.

So it's not videogamey. It's naval wargame-y.

In fact a lot of D&D's rules are wargame-y, as they derive largely from Chainmail.


----------



## Rechan (May 31, 2010)

tyrlaan said:


> This was a much better read when it was actually on topic.
> 
> I respectfully request folks do some thread forking and get this train back on the rails.



I've come to the conclusion that we're so far off topic from the OP that there's no going back. At this point half the thread has been taken up with this discussion, and even if it stopped, I don't think the houserule discussion would be salvaged.


----------



## Nifft (May 31, 2010)

My favorite not-quite-HP system is the one in Star Wars Saga Edition.

I've been wondering for a LONG time now how that could be house-ruled into 3.5e or 4e.

3.5e had a few generally useless conditions (like Dazzled), so those could be lumped into a general condition track pretty easily.

4e's conditions are pared down to the point that I don't think many candidates for consolidation remain... on the other hand, it has a boatload of "-2 to you, save ends" not-quite-conditions which could easily become boxes in a generic condition track.

Actually, maybe a bunch of 3.5e de-buffs could be handled similarly.

"_Drag, drag, drag_", -- N


----------



## BryonD (May 31, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Simply equating the two as being the same WOULD get you strange looks on videogame websites akin to arguing that BD&D is the exact same game as AD&D.



 And again, he did not simply equate them.  You are still trying to turn this into a straw man.



> As an aside, HALO is "NOT" an exception. Most modern day FPS use this method, indeed, part of the reltaively new IP of Left 4 Dead's appeal was that it harkened back to the older days of FPS when games required Healthpacks and managing them..



I don't know that I'd concede this claim.  But regardless, there is plenty of examples of the other side, not to mention by your own admission plenty of historic precedent, that the basis of the term is reasonable.

Not to mention that you ignored the main part of my post: The distinction between sci-fi / technology simulation and sword and sorcery simulation


----------



## Votan (May 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 1. Training.  This requires house rules post 1e.




I like training and think it was a good idea.  The cost factor in 1E made it hard to implement but it had a lot of nice features to it.  Self training made it possible to get to the higher levels -- it just took more resources.

The issue with the 1E training system was cost was too linear: at low levels it was impossible to save up for it and at high levels it was trivial as an expense.  

But the idea that it froze XP until you did the training made the sudden rush to high level no longer a major gameplay issue.


----------



## Votan (May 31, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I think you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that there's any such shift.  Granted, I don't really know much about 4th edition, but 3rd edition was the most mutable, houserule friendly system in the history of systems.  They even released the game with a specific license that allowed anyone to publish any houserule they wanted.  And they published an entire book that was nothing but a gigantic collection of houserules (_Unearthed Arcana_.)




I had thought that aspect of 3E was harking back to AD&D 1E where I remember a very vibrant house rules culture.  The 1E DMG was filled with ideas about how to houserule things and no game I ever saw used all of it at once.  It's not that 3E was unfriendly to houserules (it's very friendly) but I think that 1E was as well.  

2E, which I remember well, seemed to be more structured and it was less obvious that it would be easy to houserule it.  I never tried, at least, whereas I have tried with 3E.

I also think that our groups evolve over time so houserule friendliness may also be a function of who we happen to be playing with at the time.


----------



## Primal (May 31, 2010)

xechnao said:


> Listen, by keep repeating that "4e does not need...etch" you insult my intelligence. SC are really irrelevant to 4e's design. They designed 4e encounter mechanics and rules and then they saw how they could fit something like SCs. 4e is really nothing without its encounter mechanics. While it is what it is even without SCs.
> 
> And SCs are a failure. Primarily, errata has nothing to do with it. They do not fail just at implementation: they fail at their design goal. SCs as designed could never provide a mechanical way to do what they wanted them to do. Which is to provide to the GM solid possibilities for creating interesting "problems" for the group to solve in a cooperative fashion where everyone needs to participate.
> But even if you want to say that they were not meant for this -but rather just as mathematical guidelines, they still fail at their mathematical design premise which is the DM to be able to control with a D20 rng the difficulties and success rates of various possible SC efforts. Neither the DM nor the players can control the knowledge of the difficulties without assistance from some software where you have to input all the possible SC scenarios and let it spell out the probabilities for you. And this not for every SC but rather for every SC roll as with every roll things change. The latest thread I can remember about SC fundamental and core design is this one:
> ...




I don't think the Skill Challenge system is irrelevant to 4E or its design. Yeah, they didn't implement it flawlessly. In fact, it seems the designers just threw it in there because the felt *obliged* to do the "social combat system" they had promised. It's not that it wouldn't work as written; it does, if the DM understands how conflict resolution works in indie games (as we know, the system is a "hybridization" of conflict resolution and complex skill checks in UA). Furthermore, if the DM is willing to relinquish at least *some* control over the story to the players -- and the players are creative team-players who share the same concept of what a "good story" is -- it works brilliantly. In fact, it makes the game *shine*.

However, as you wrote, 4E is a very "gamist" system. The mechanical nature of the game may prove to be problematic; both the DM and the players may feel limited by the game mechanics, and it doesn't help that the whole SC system is vaguely written. Even though 4E is very flexible, many DMs may feel restricted by the explicit skill challenge format -- regardless of those SC articles written by Mearls. Also, if the group has clashing goals or gaming styles, SCs may feel *very* artificial and awkward during play. It doesn't help that there are no "real" stakes there; the most common "penalty" for failing an SC seems to be an extra combat encounter. For many players that is, in fact, a *reward* in the form of additional XP. In this regard the SC system is limited by the very nature of D&D adventures; it's almost unthinkable that the players could suffer a serious setback in the story -- or even "lose" the adventure -- by failing a single SC. Ergo, there is usually no "real" penalty for failure; at worst it's either some extra XP, a healing surge  or a minor obstacle (such as having to find an alternate solution to reach their goal). So there's usually very little at stake. From this perspective the SC system, as a whole, may indeed feel irrelevant. Nothing prevents the DM from "raising the stakes", however; it may require rewriting and improvising a bit, but it's possible.

 Yet how is this different from "nar" games? Yes, there is usually at least *SOME* sort of impact on the story (and the fate of the protagonists) for failing a conflict. Occassionally the stakes may even involve the life of the protagonist(s), and often a dramatic failure may result in a better story. Still, even the most hallowed indie RPGs require the same things as SCs do to work; even a single player who doesn't get the game's theme and/or share the same concept of what is a "good story" may easily ruin the game for everyone. For example, I've played with people who thought it'd be cool to use narration rights to reveal that someone else's character is a sodomizing pervert (go figure). If the only official rule is that you need to enter a conflict to alter something another player just narrated (with the usual caveat "This game may not suit everyone"), it reminds me of the worst problems with SCs. Except that with SCs, the DM still has the final say over what happens.

So, my point is that even though people may scoff at SCs as a badly-written version of conflict resolution, I feel that it reflects narrow-minded thinking; there's nothing wrong with SCs as written. If the whole group consists of team-players and the DM understand how SCs should work, I think it's a flexible system that bring fresh elements and outside-the-box thinking into D&D. Whatever problems you would have with SCs are the same that would feel just as awkward in most indie RPGs, too.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> And again, he did not simply equate them. You are still trying to turn this into a straw man.




I am honestly trying to understand where we are disagreeing so please bear with me..

How am I turning this into a straw man? His post mentions that he believes Healing surges were inspired/taken from videogames and he gave examples of Doom and Duke Nuke'm.

But those videogames use the health/stim pack method of healing which came STRAIGHT from D&D....that makes no sense then to argue that 4e's healing is wrong since you're basically saying that 4e is NOT D&D because it is using healing that was stolen FROM D&D


BryonD said:


> I don't know that I'd concede this claim. But regardless, there is plenty of examples of the other side, not to mention by your own admission plenty of historic precedent, that the basis of the term is reasonable.




Basis of what term? That 4e uses the more modern regeneration method best exemplified by HALO? Yea..I see no reason to disagree with that.

I just disagree with using Doom and Duke Nukem as the examples to use.



BryonD said:


> Not to mention that you ignored the main part of my post: The distinction between sci-fi / technology simulation and sword and sorcery simulation




This I did ignore since frankly, I tend to see healing surges NOT along the fantasy vs sci-fi axis but the "action movie" vs "non action movie" staple.

Both sci fi and fantasy games make extensive use of the health pack method of healing....


----------



## mxyzplk (Jun 1, 2010)

Back on topic...  I also used to house rule a lot in 1e and especially 2e.  In 2e I had a pretty big set of standard loadout house rules.

When 3e came out, I didn't houserule initially because the game itself fixed some of the things I had been houseruling (Perception stat, multiclassing).  But as time went on it was more because the game was too complex and intricate to houserule well.

The new paradigm in 3e quickly became different than that in the older days.  In 1e/2e, anything outside the core book was understood to be purely at the DM's discretion, and the ruleset in general as well.  In 3e, though initially things like prestige classes gave lip service to that, as the splatbooks poured out the paradigm quickly became "players can pick whatever they want out of them and DMs really shouldn't say much about that."  Houseruling became too much about DM empowerment in an age of player empowerment, and also the ruleset had become complex enough that a single houserule could totally unbalance some new option in Complete Whatnot - and the culture against the DM limiting player options made that hard to fix.  Also, there were so many third party addons you could use one of those without it really counting as house ruling in  most peoples' minds.

Then 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed (heck, even generating third party content tapered off).  Some of this is inevitable in the more 'connected' world - with organized play and Insider, it encourages a standard ruleset and discourages DMs from making any group specific rulings.

Essentially, more of the choice has been removed from the DM and placed into the rules, which somewhat grants that choice to the players instead.  I'm not going to opine on whether that's good or bad, but I think it's clearly what's happened.  So less houseruling in later versions of D&D is a natural result.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 1, 2010)

mxyzplk said:


> Then 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed (heck, even generating third party content tapered off).



The GSL has much more to do with this that the rules, I suspect.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> *Back on topic, please!*



Just to be clear; which topic is "off topic?"  The hit point discussion, I presume?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 1, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.




I would disagree with this assessment. My 4E campaign has been running semi-regularly since last September and the PC's are almost 5th level. 

Number of skill challenges run: 0

What makes them integral to a 4E game, the fact that there are rules for them? 

There has been much discussion on the SC topic and the associated mechanics issues. At first I thought that they sounded like a neat idea with lackluster implementation. Some of the nuts and bolts have been tinkered with adjusting the DCs and such in an attempt to make them run smoother. 

Here's the thing. These superficial design flaws were just masking the fundamental design flaws. At it's most stripped down basic level, a skill challenge is simply a series of attacks against situations using dice. 

Success DC= Defense
# Successes = Monster hit points
# Failures = PC hit points

PC's thus attack situations in an organized turn taking fashion until the situation is defeated or it "kills" them and they have to face the dreaded consequences. 

If we wanted to just sit around rolling dice at each other then finding something to beat up isn't too difficult. I have never subscribed to the "unless a dice fest is in progress nothing meaningful is happening" style of play. Skills use happens when needed and we have skills for that. Play kind of flows as it happens so the whole "OMG are we in an encounter?" isn't a big deal. 

I don't see how skill challenges actually work without dictating them to the players. I would never bothing planning out such a series of skill checks in advance. After all how do I know the PC's will be in a position at a particular place and time to be in such a challenge? 

I guess that is one of my biggest house rules.


----------



## Galloglaich (Jun 1, 2010)

mxyzplk said:


> The new paradigm in 3e quickly became different than that in the older days.  In 1e/2e, anything outside the core book was understood to be purely at the DM's discretion, and the ruleset in general as well.  In 3e, though initially things like prestige classes gave lip service to that, as the splatbooks poured out the paradigm quickly became "players can pick whatever they want out of them and DMs really shouldn't say much about that."*  Houseruling became too much about DM empowerment in an age of player empowerment, and also the ruleset had become complex enough that a single houserule could totally unbalance some new option in Complete Whatnot - and the culture against the DM limiting player options made that hard to fix.*  Also, there were so many third party addons you could use one of those without it really counting as house ruling in  most peoples' minds.




Thanks... this is what i was trying to say.  This was also crippling to writers trying to do stuff for D20 as well.  I had to consciously leave out a lot of good ideas because they were encroaching on this paradigm, and decided against even doing a couple of projects because it was too much of a hassle to try to work around this.



> Then 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed (heck, even generating third party content tapered off).  Some of this is inevitable in the more 'connected' world - with organized play and Insider, it encourages a standard ruleset and discourages DMs from making any group specific rulings.




Word.



> Essentially, more of the choice has been removed from the DM and placed into the rules, which somewhat grants that choice to the players instead.  I'm not going to opine on whether that's good or bad, but I think it's clearly what's happened.  So less houseruling in later versions of D&D is a natural result.




Very well put.  +1

G.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 1, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> At it's most stripped down basic level, a skill challenge is simply a series of attacks against situations using dice.



But at it's most basic, this is true for any dice-based RPG, including indie games like HeroQuest, or D&D combat, etc.

I think a lot of the criticisms of skill challenges simply disregard the rules text that I quoted upthread: the die cannot be rolled until after the GM has framed the situation and the player has explained what s/he is doing to respond to that situation. It is implicit, although perhaps not fully explicit, that the situation may change in respond to any given skill check, thus opening up new opportunities for subsequent skill chekcs. (One way in which this is implicit: that certain skill checks may open up new skills.)

Primal's post upthread is much more on target: WotC, in giving examples of skill challenges, has had trouble getting the stakes right, in part because they seem not to have noticed how success or failure in skill challenges can be linked in to the Quest XP system and other aspects of the game that contribute to dynamic story-focused play.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 1, 2010)

mxyzplk said:


> 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed



House rules I use in my game (summarised from post upthread, plus a few others I've remembered):

*I give out total treasures in my game equal to the level-appropriate treasure parcels, but mix and match in various ways, and give out a lot of the cash parcels as magic items, rituals and ritual reagents instead;

*I give out a mixture of GM-chosen items, player "wish list" items and existing item upgrades;

*I give out minor Quest XP based on the players making decisions for their PCs that are expressive of their thematic goals for their PCs (in effect, spontaneous quests rather than pre-planned quests);

*I allow each PC to choose two "background feats" which may be triggered once as an immediate reaction, last for a short period, and then may not be used again until they are restored by the GM calling a -2 penalty to a d20 roll by that player;

*I ban a few feats or powers that are obviously broken or otherwise problematic (eg like a lot of people, I don't allow the Expertise feats);

*I had houseruled Careful Shot to be the same as the now-errata-ed version from the beginning of the discussions about its mathematical inadequacy compared to Twin Strike;

*I have created a few new feats (albeitwith pretty simple bonuses);

*I have created a few new monsters;

*during a skill challenge, a player may spend an action point to make a secondary skill check in response to another player's failed check, as an immediate interrupt;

*from time-to-time in combat, I make calls for issues that the rules don't cover (eg the effects of some terrain that is not discussed in the DMG);

*from time-to-time both in and out of combat, I adjudicate the effects of player actions using page 42 (eg the paladin dealing damage to a recently-animated wight by using his Religion skill to call down the curse of the Raven Queen).​
There are also some house rules that I think would be pretty easy to introduce for anyone who wanted to:

*I could imagine taking what the DMG2 says about the pass/fail cycle and trying to work it up into a more robust set of guidelines to interact with page 42;

*I could imagine someone who was more interested in the continuity of resoruce expenditure over encounters working out long term rest and recovery mechanics, probably triggered by taking an extended rest and then based on the disease track;

*Although I haven't done so, I could imagine designing new powers and new complex conditional feats without too much trouble.​
So, given my own experience, I simply deny that house rules have been killed or are impossible. It may be that not many people want them (eg because changes to feats and powers make it harder to use the Character Builder) but that seems to me to be a different matter.

And frankly, I'm glad that 4e delivers the play experience I am looking for without the need to do much more than tweak a few elements of the character build system, make a few decisions about how I am going to implement the reward system, tweak the skill challenge system, and make a few other calls from time to time in relation to the action resolution sytem. It makes a big change from Rolemaster (my previous system of choice) which requires pretty significant house ruling just to get it off the ground.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 1, 2010)

mxyzplk said:


> The new paradigm in 3e quickly became different than that in the older days.  In 1e/2e, anything outside the core book was understood to be purely at the DM's discretion, and the ruleset in general as well.  In 3e, though initially things like prestige classes gave lip service to that.




I don't disagree that things changed (although I think it happened much later than you claim).   I do disagree about paying lip service in 3.0.   Between the  PHB and DMG, there are several passages stating that the DM is in control of how the game is run, can make changes and even the presentation of many variant options for tailoring the game.

PHB:
P. 4 Rule 0
p. 18  Customizing Characters
p. 60 Sidebar: Access to Skills

DMG
P.6 
  "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, you decide how the group is going to play the game and "you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them."(DMG p.6). 

  "the whole tenor of the game is in your hands".

P.9  "Good players will alway recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding somethng in a rule book" 

p.11. 
"Every rule in the Player's Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game" 

"As DM, you get to make up your own spells, magic items, races, and monsters!".


P.25-26  Modifying Classes
    - Modifing Character Classes
    -  Spell Lists for Variant Spellcasters

P.27  Prestige Classes
"Allowing PCs acces to prestige classes is purely optional and always under the purview of the DM" 

" Prestige classes are idiosyncratic to each campaign, and DMs may choose to not allow them or use them only for NPCs" 


P40-42  Variant 1st Level Multiclass Characters

P41 Advancing Levels
-	Access and Training
-	Variant Learning Skills and Feats
-	Variant Learning New Spells
-	Researcing Original Spells
-	Variant Gaining Class Abilities
-	Variant General Downtime
-	Variant Gaining Fixed Hit Points

p.66 Combat: Damage
-    variant Clobbered
 -    variant Death from Massive Damage Based on Size 
-    variant Damage to Specific Areas


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2010)

Votan said:


> But the idea that it froze XP until you did the training made the sudden rush to high level no longer a major gameplay issue.



One of the very old houserules we still use is that your ExP gain is not completely frozen when you bump, but if you don't get training reasonably soon it slows to a slug-like crawl.  This was to account for people who bumped in mid-adventure - they could finish that adventure out without losing too much, rather than want to drop everything right then and there and go back to town for a few weeks. 

Lan-"To House Rule, for the win"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2010)

Greg K said:


> I don't disagree that things changed (although I think it happened much later than you claim).   I do disagree about paying lip service in 3.0.   Between the  PHB and DMG, there are several passages stating that the DM is in control of how the game is run, can make changes and even the presentation of many variant options for tailoring the game.



This shows me that despite having played 3.0 for seven years or so I really need to read its material more clearly, as while I knew about the rules options I didn't know about most of the others.

The most important passage is this one:


> DMG
> P.6
> "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, you decide how the group is going to play the game and "you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them."(DMG p.6).



Was there a similar passage in the 3e PH, that said in effect "The DM is in charge"?  If not, there should have been; highlighted in neon on page one and repeated often thereafter.  Many many arguments could have been prevented...


> "the whole tenor of the game is in your hands".



I think this one is referring to flavour and game style, which the DM is by default going to set whether she is told she can or not. 

Lan-"'The DM is god.  Abide or die.' (sign on my first DM's DM screen)"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Jun 1, 2010)

Greg K said:


> Between the  PHB and DMG, there are several passages stating that the DM is in control of how the game is run, can make changes and even the presentation of many variant options for tailoring the game.



The 4e DMG has a page discussing house rules (p 189), giving a couple of examples. Unlike 3E it doesn't have the same emphasis on GM power over the game - page 189 cautions that "You have the authority to do whatever you want with the game, but your efforts won’t help if you
have no group" - but 4e does stress the role of the GM as a referee and arbiter of the rules (PHB p 8, DMG pp 12, 42).


----------



## Rechan (Jun 1, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I have created a few new monsters;



That's a houserule? IF that's the case, I'm a super houseruler.


----------



## Votan (Jun 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> One of the very old houserules we still use is that your ExP gain is not completely frozen when you bump, but if you don't get training reasonably soon it slows to a slug-like crawl.  This was to account for people who bumped in mid-adventure - they could finish that adventure out without losing too much, rather than want to drop everything right then and there and go back to town for a few weeks.
> 
> Lan-"To House Rule, for the win"-efan




I used to only assess XP at the end of an adventure and freeze the XP at that total (so players would be really encouraged to train before taking on a new quest).  That way nobody would end up multiple levels behind.

I also used it to make it impossible for daul class humans to gain several levels in an adventure so that they could reactivate the original class very quickly.  Otherwise dual classing all mages as fighters seemed too be too obvious a route to go (even if it was fun in Baldur's Gate).


----------



## Votan (Jun 1, 2010)

Greg K said:


> P.27  Prestige Classes
> "Allowing PCs acces to prestige classes is purely optional and always under the purview of the DM"
> 
> " Prestige classes are idiosyncratic to each campaign, and DMs may choose to not allow them or use them only for NPCs"




I found it very hard to eliminate prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 even if I wanted to.  Player's focused on them and it seemed to annoy people all out of proportion when you removed a beloved prestige class.  It was actually easiser to set the rules as "core only" in my own experience.

But I agree the text was there . . .


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 1, 2010)

pemerton said:


> But at it's most basic, this is true for any dice-based RPG, including indie games like HeroQuest, or D&D combat, etc.




Really? Some situations are handled regularly without rolling dice at all in my(4E) campaign. The fact that the rules call for a dice fest when anything of substance happens doesn't stop us from ignoring that and just playing it out. 



pemerton said:


> I think a lot of the criticisms of skill challenges simply disregard the rules text that I quoted upthread: the die cannot be rolled until after the GM has framed the situation and the player has explained what s/he is doing to respond to that situation. It is implicit, although perhaps not fully explicit, that the situation may change in respond to any given skill check, thus opening up new opportunities for subsequent skill chekcs. (One way in which this is implicit: that certain skill checks may open up new skills.)




My major issue with skill challenges isn't that the PC's cannot approach the challenge in different ways or that the nature of the challenge doesn't change in response to actions taken. The rules actually cover this
quite well. My issue stems from the fact that setting up such a challenge pre-supposes what the PC's need to do in the first place. 

For example, lets say I construct a skill challenge. The PC's have found out that one of the Baron's most trusted allies is in fact, a villan. The challenge involves convincing the Baron of this fact with circumstancial evidence and persuasion.
So I start outlining the useful skills, set complexity and DC's, and make notes about how successes and failures influence later parts of the challenge. That's a lot of work. What if the PC's don't care what the Baron believes? What if they are not sure if the Baron is a villan so they decide not to tip their hand with the info they have? 

Here I have wasted valuable prep time for a scripted encounter that will never happen. 
Unlike combat stats which are generally useful and can be recycled with ease, the effort spent on the skill challenge is wasted. 

I could only see the value in skill challenges if I were running a game wherein I dictated to the players what encounters they were going to have and the nature of those encounters.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 1, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Unlike combat stats which are generally useful and can be recycled with ease, the effort spent on the skill challenge is wasted.




I see them pretty much as the same as a combat encounter... You don't have to make them super tailored to a specific outcome or story or whatever, so if the PCs don't go that route just store it for later use.  

I don't find any difficulty in re-using SCs at a later point. (The fact that they're not as detailed as combat encounters also means they can be retrofitted on the fly much more easily.)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2010)

With 4e, my group does very little house ruling (free weapon/implement expertise feats, re-equip each PC w/magic items when they level in lieu of magic treasure, start with/use 1 action point per encounter).

With 3e I did more, mainly to add flavor (and with 1e/2e, well, you can probably guess...). Nowadays we just add flavor and handwave, leaving the basic game engine alone.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 1, 2010)

I have become much more sparing with my house rules in recent years, not because I don't want to fix the system or because I'm scared of breaking game balance, but because I have come to appreciate the cost of house-ruling. Every house rule requires players to learn it and remember it in play. That's brain-power that isn't being used for role-playing, tactics, or simply appreciating how awesome my adventure is. 

Therefore, I now make a point of weighing the benefit of each house rule (in terms of improved gameplay, atmosphere, verisimilitude, or whatever) against the cost.

I have little hesitation in ruling that such-and-such doesn't exist in my world, since such exclusions don't come up much in play; the players just have to remember not to write "warforged artificer" on their sheets during chargen. On the other hand, I am very reluctant to alter (for instance) the combat rules. Since combat comes up more or less every session and requires a lot of brain-power to begin with, I don't want to make the players remember any more tweaks than absolutely necessary. If I do change the combat rules, it's usually with the aim of simplifying or clarifying the system.

More and more, my solution to mechanical issues in the rules is to take advantage of 4E's exception-based design to make the problem moot. For instance, I hate the magic item daily power system; I think it's clunky and way too complicated. My first impulse was to work out a house rule that simplifies the way those powers work. For my next campaign, though, I'm going to address the problem simply by throwing out the existing magic item list, using inherent bonuses, and handing out only homebrewed items which don't have daily powers.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 1, 2010)

Votan said:


> I found it very hard to eliminate prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 even if I wanted to.  Player's focused on them and it seemed to annoy people all out of proportion when you removed a beloved prestige class.  . .




I haven't had this problem. I am very upfront.  I am running the game in a setting.  Here are the races and their culture(s).  In the description of each culture is a list of known prcs.  If a prc is not listed, it either does not exist or it is a secret organization that must be discovered in play.  Furthermore,
 just because a player knows that  a prc exists does not mean that character does.   The  character need have knowledge of the Prc's existance, find a trainer, convince them to train you and have time to train.  Knowledge may come from being part of the culture, having knowledge of a given culture (each culture is its own skilll) or from in play experience.

 The one exceptions to gaining access to a trainer, if appropriate, is to start as a member of the culture and/or organization.  However, this may require the character to take a class variant, use a tailored spell list, and /or may place other rp responsabilities and restrictions on the character as appropriate.


----------



## tyrlaan (Jun 1, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The GSL has much more to do with this that the rules, I suspect.



I disagree with this, based on personal experience. (Wait for it, this is also on topic)

I've built out 5 full blown character classes. Probably a dozen paragon paths as well. And 8 brand new races. Oh, and a bevy of feats to go with all of that. I bring this up because:

(a) I can never, as a sole human being, pump out the volume of material WotC does, nor can I provide a CB for my meager amount of material. Therefore, how can I plausibly expect my nifty class with only 4 power options per level to compete with a rogue, which has eleventy billion power options per level? Oh, and a bucket full of class specific AND race/class combo specific feats. 

Publishing 3PP like this is not being squelched by the GSL. It's being squelched by inability to compete at any appreciable level.

(Discussion on whether this is a good or bad thing, and for who might be an interesting side topic - as well as if people think I'm full of garbage)

(b) Clearly I've created houserules. More than is healthy, one might argue  

Now, if we delineate precisely which subset of the houserule universe folks are talking about, I may or may not agree with the stance of the OP/original blog post. 

However, I think all that's changed is what is easier to houserule and what is tougher to houserule. Making a brand new base class in 3e I considered easy, but a new PrC difficult. In 4e, I'd flip that - PPs are easy and base classes are difficult. I can probably draft up other examples, but hopefully I've communicated my point. I suppose we'll see


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 1, 2010)

tyrlaan said:


> Publishing 3PP like this is not being squelched by the GSL. It's being squelched by inability to compete at any appreciable level.




3PP material is being squelched by it's inability to be integrated into the monopolized software tools owned by WOTC. The inability to compete is purely legal. 

If 3PP could write material that would work as snap-in data files for the CB(and WOTC permitted it)  I think we would be seeing quite a bit stuff being published.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 2, 2010)

I don't see the edition wars in the house rule question. I think Ari or anyone else could've had this problem from OD&D on up. 

The problem (and, yes, it is a problem) isn't necessarily the system.

It lies in how the *individual* approaches the system.

If they approach it trying to seek a sort of intellectual perfection and elegance, they will be paralyzed. D&D isn't chess, and all possible variations can't be held in even the cleverest mind, though you could probably pay a team to keep tabs on it. 

If they approach it willy-nilly, it might be unbalanced. D&D carries a lot of moving parts, even in the early versions, and it's impossible to see how those might interact.

When adding to a system, I find it more productive to err on the side of chaos than of balance, especially for my home games. The result might not achieve mechanical perfection, but, to me, mechanical perfection is utterly pointless. I want to provide my audience (my players) with something engaging and fun. For that to happen, things need to be different, novel, and unique. There needs to be intellectual stimulation.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 2, 2010)

Votan said:


> I used to only assess XP at the end of an adventure and freeze the XP at that total (so players would be really encouraged to train before taking on a new quest).  That way nobody would end up multiple levels behind.



I just accept as a fact of life that once one character reaches 2nd the party will never again be all the same level. 


> I also used it to make it impossible for daul class humans to gain several levels in an adventure so that they could reactivate the original class very quickly.  Otherwise dual classing all mages as fighters seemed too be too obvious a route to go (even if it was fun in Baldur's Gate).



Forgot to mention, we ditched the human-only dual-class rules ages ago.  All the races work the same now.

Lanefan


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 2, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If they approach it trying to seek a sort of intellectual perfection and elegance, they will be paralyzed. D&D isn't chess, and all possible variations can't be held in even the cleverest mind, though you could probably pay a team to keep tabs on it.
> 
> If they approach it willy-nilly, it might be unbalanced. D&D carries a lot of moving parts, even in the early versions, and it's impossible to see how those might interact.



Please, let us all reflect on this for a moment.  It is wisdom born from experience.

KM, as far as I am concerned, you couldn't be farther from the truth.  Why are we all getting stuck on levels of balance that we have (obviously) let slide up and down the scale a t different times of out RPG lives.

One thing we all need to remember, is that our individual ideas of what makes a complete (or balanced, if you will) system has changed over the years based upon all the game edition and systems we have tried out.   

I have fluctuated between loosey-goosey almost rules-less gaming in the 1e-2e eras to strict adherence to RAW in 3e to a hybrid for 4e.  

Others have had their gaming life/RPG experience go in different directions.  

Here's the kicker..... We are all right. YES!!!

If it works for our group, and our game, then we are all right!  How awesome is that????  How many game systems or entertainment experiences can say that despite the ecology of the environment, that multiple experiences of the the same event (a D&D game, T1-Tomb of Horrors, Savage Tide, homebrew games, Gygaxian sandobx) would result in a multitude of RIGHT and CORRECT and VALID experiences?

Not many, I presume.

God (or the Gods, if you will) loves D&D and its many forms.

Yeeeee Haaaawwww to that!


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> 3PP material is being squelched by it's inability to be integrated into the monopolized software tools owned by WOTC. The inability to compete is purely legal.




The fact that WoTC has cooler toys doesn't make it a monopoly. The CB is not needed to play the game-  It's just "too cool" to pass up for most of us. 



> If 3PP could write material that would work as snap-in data files for the CB(and WOTC permitted it)  I think we would be seeing quite a bit stuff being published.




I do agree with this part though. I wish WoTC would make it easier to input Houserules that actually made use of the Cbs functions.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2010)

Rechan said:


> That's a houserule? IF that's the case, I'm a super houseruler.



Well, part of the issue here is that "houserule" hasn't been very clearly defined. It's complicated by the fact that a lot of really important rules for any RPG, like reward guidelines and guidelines for building encounters/conflicts, aren't classified by most D&D players as rules at all!

If by "houseruling" we mean changing the basic character building rules (say in the way that psionic classes do) or changing the basic action resolution rules (say in the way that Stalker0's Obsidian skill challenge rules do) then my guess is a lot of 4e players don't do a lot of houseruling of the first, don't do a lot of houseruling of the combat mechanics, but do do quite a bit of skill challenge houseruling. (But maybe I'm just projecting from my own experience.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Really? Some situations are handled regularly without rolling dice at all in my(4E) campaign. The fact that the rules call for a dice fest when anything of substance happens doesn't stop us from ignoring that and just playing it out.



Fair enough - I'd say that the game isn't entirely dice-based, then, but the label is neither here nor there.



ExploderWizard said:


> My issue stems from the fact that setting up such a challenge pre-supposes what the PC's need to do in the first place.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I could only see the value in skill challenges if I were running a game wherein I dictated to the players what encounters they were going to have and the nature of those encounters.



I think this is a very good point. I want to respond to it in two ways.

First, I think in general that 4e is a game that rewards pre-prep of encounters. At least for me, it's easier to map out combat locations with interesting terrain in advance rather than on the spot. Similarly, it's easier for me to prepare an interesting skill challenge in advance rather than on the spot.

I don't dictate to my players what encounters they will have and what their nature will be - rather, I rely on my intuition as to these things. Sometimes I'm wrong, and have to work stuff out on the fly.

I think the DMG2 discussion of secondary skills for skill challenges has helped me a bit with this, because it gives a better range of ideas about what secondary skills can do, and so has helped me make on-the-fly judgements about how I should mechanically interpret a player's description of their PC's actions in a non-combat encounter (eg are they trying to undo a previous PC's mistake? if so, then it's a secondary check to try and negate a failure).

I don't think that 4e is any worse in this respect than any fairly crunchy RPG, but I could be wrong. Anyway, this is the first time I've really seen someone point to an aspect of 4e that has the potential to push in a railroady direction.

Second, I think it is possible to place pre-prepped encounters in such a way that the prep makes it easier to run the encounter, but the prep is useful regardless of the goal at which the players aim. So a list of likely avenues of social interaction with an NPC, together with DCs, can be useful prep even if it's not clear whether the players will want to treat that enemy as an ally or an enemy. I admit that if they decide to start a fight then all that work is wasted (this is a consequence of 4e having two such different resolution systems), but maybe some of it can be recycled the same way you might recycle a location if the PCs end up having a picnic with the orcs rather than fighting them.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> More and more, my solution to mechanical issues in the rules is to take advantage of 4E's exception-based design to make the problem moot. For instance, I hate the magic item daily power system; I think it's clunky and way too complicated. My first impulse was to work out a house rule that simplifies the way those powers work. For my next campaign, though, I'm going to address the problem simply by throwing out the existing magic item list, using inherent bonuses, and handing out only homebrewed items which don't have daily powers.



Nice point. My players have different levels of tolerance for tracking daily item use, and I make sure that their PCs find useful items that reflect these differences. Is that another house rule?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2010)

Votan said:


> I found it very hard to eliminate prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 even if I wanted to.  Player's focused on them and it seemed to annoy people all out of proportion when you removed a beloved prestige class.





Greg K said:


> I haven't had this problem. I am very upfront.  I am running the game in a setting.  Here are the races and their culture(s).  In the description of each culture is a list of known prcs.  If a prc is not listed, it either does not exist or it is a secret organization that must be discovered in play.



I don't think that Votan (and Raven Crowking in his comment upthread) were suggesting that removing prestige classes is hard at the _conceptual_ level. Rather, I think they're saying that, from the player's point of view, prestige classes are a big part of the 3E play experience, so that if you try the sorts of things you suggest (roleplaying restrictions, setting restrictions etc) the upshot will tend to be disgruntled players.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I think this is a very good point. I want to respond to it in two ways.
> 
> First, I think in general that 4e is a game that rewards pre-prep of encounters. At least for me, it's easier to map out combat locations with interesting terrain in advance rather than on the spot. Similarly, it's easier for me to prepare an interesting skill challenge in advance rather than on the spot.
> 
> ...




What I usually do (using any system) for regular campaign play is organize prep into categories:

Locations
NPC's/Monsters
Events

I try and work on these independent of each other. If there is a location that is a likely spot for combat then I will note the relevant details about the area.

 NPC's have statblocks which contain combat and non-combat 
information (skills, motivations, personal details). The amount of detail depends on the importance and influence of the NPC. A shopkeeper might just have line about personality, skills, and share a combat block identical 
to dozens of other NPC's of this type (listing it just once to save space). A major player in the area would get a full statblock and more notes about goals/motivations. 

Events are either triggered by PC activity or set in motion by an outside force ( an NPC, nature, a deity, etc). Some of these will happen at particular times, some might happen without intervention, and others will only happen if the players take specific actions. 
Each element has obvious influence on the others and they combine in various ways but I try and avoid stringing too many together combined with the presence of the PC's. I like to let the players decide what is 
important to focus on. Whatever they decide becomes the center of the action. This is why it is difficult to design meaningful skill challenges. 

Using my prep method, if a pursuit begins then the relevant info is at hand. I have info about the environment, the NPC(s) involved, and any events taking place in that area at that time. Detailing an elaborate chase challenge that may or may not happen in that particular place or time seems like wasted work. 

The structured scene based design that 4E is designed around is (IMHO) more suited for convention/organized play than open ended home campaigning.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't think that Votan (and Raven Crowking in his comment upthread) were suggesting that removing prestige classes is hard at the _conceptual_ level. Rather, I think they're saying that, from the player's point of view, prestige classes are a big part of the 3E play experience, so that if you try the sorts of things you suggest (roleplaying restrictions, setting restrictions etc) the upshot will tend to be disgruntled players.




I think things like this are the reason 4e lacks any "overpowered but at the discretion of the DM" elements. They just end up being DM traps. 

The DM has to decide if he wants to  accept throwing the math off, or look like a jerk.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think things like this are the reason 4e lacks any "overpowered but at the discretion of the DM" elements. They just end up being DM traps.
> 
> The DM has to decide if he wants to accept throwing the math off, or look like a jerk.





Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?



Because some of us don't play with the same group all the time.

I can count on my hand the number of times I've had the same group for more than one campaign. 

And if you've never played with this DM, or even know him, then you're not going to just instantly trust him.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?




Sure- my apologies if I didn't make it clear that my statement didn't apply to everyone in all situations. (I kind of figured it was assumed.)

The point is though that WoTC seems to have learned that it can't release rules just for groups where the players always "trust" the DM is always correct. (Especially when it means giving up something cool.)

And it's not always a trust thing. It's just the nature of people wanting something cool and being upset because it's not available.

Why make the DM have to weigh the cost vrs benefit with various rules elements?

It seems they decided to always keep things balanced, and appropriate for all campaigns then let individual DMs who can do so, choose to add in their own crazy elements dependent upon the nature of their own games.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Because some of us don't play with the same group all the time.
> 
> I can count on my hand the number of times I've had the same group for more than one campaign.
> 
> And if you've never played with this DM, or even know him, then you're not going to just instantly trust him.




To run the game?  Why not?  I figure, if you're taking the time to run the game and have invited me to play with you... then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I mean what's the worse that can happen... I realize this DM isn't right for me?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Sure- my apologies if I didn't make it clear that my statement didn't apply to everyone in all situations. (I kind of figured it was assumed.)
> 
> The point is though that WoTC seems to have learned that it can't release rules just for groups where the players always "trust" the DM is always correct. (Especially when it means giving up something cool.)
> 
> ...




Emphasis Mine:  I guess my question would be... Why take that option away from DM's who want it?  It doesn't have to be core, but a book like Unearthed Arcana of clearly labeled optional rules and variants for the game with sidebars about effects would be a great supplement for 4e...IMO of course.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> To run the game?  Why not?  I figure, if you're taking the time to run the game and have invited me to play with you... then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I mean what's the worse that can happen... I realize this DM isn't right for me?



But that's not trust. Trust is the belief that the DM has your best interests at heart. That he's not going to screw you over or abuse his power. Trust is built.

I once sat under a DM that made you justify every single one of your class abilities, and was going to weedle them away for various reasons (for instance giving the druid a hard time over the fact he gets an animal companion). However, this Dm was a "friend".

There's more than just "This Dm isn't right for me". There's frustration and wasting time. People take _offense_ to stuff like this.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis Mine:  I guess my question would be... Why take that option away from DM's who want it?  It doesn't have to be core, but a book like Unearthed Arcana of clearly labeled optional rules and variants for the game with sidebars about effects would be a great supplement for 4e...IMO of course.




Taking away vrs Not including... tomato tamato I guess... (wait that doesn't work as well when written does it...)

And I think the answer is because even in campaigns where the players always "trust" the DM, there will still be a number of "but whyyyyyys."

But I don't see why I can't play my Drow Uber Death Bringer with + 10 unholy avenger vorpal nunchuks! It's not that overpowered!

It's a tax on the DM to figure out if adding the "cool element" will offer enough benefit to offset the amount of extra work he now has to do because of it.

True by not including them into the game by default you do loose the benefit of some other creative types offering suggestions about cool stuff to optionally add... But in my opinion I gain more sanity by players not having seen them and then deciding to beg and plead because they just really really really need that thing to complete their character vision... pleeeeease? 

I still readily add stuff that's out of balance, or unique to my games, but now I don't worry so much about stuff players find in the rule books and just really want to try.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Rechan said:


> But that's not trust. Trust is the belief that the DM has your best interests at heart. That he's not going to screw you over or abuse his power. Trust is built.




Uhm, I disagree... Trust, in the context of a DM, is that the DM has the best interest of the overall game at heart. Catering to a player's best interest can step all over everyone else's fun. As far as not screwing you, I agree and again, I see no reason to distrust a DM before I ever play with him... guess that's just me...it just seems counter productive and even possibly could cause conflict to arise that wouldn't have otherwise. Sort of like you get back what you put out.

Quick Question:  If you rarely ever play with the same people... how exactly is that trust suppose to get built, per your statement.



Rechan said:


> I once sat under a DM that made you justify every single one of your class abilities, and was going to weedle them away for various reasons (for instance giving the druid a hard time over the fact he gets an animal companion). However, this Dm was a "friend".




Yep, and as soon as I experienced this I would have decided whether I trusted this DM enough to believe he had the best interests of the game at heart in doing this...and thus stay in his game (until I changed my mind)... or whether this was something I couldn't deal with and didn't believe would be in the best interest of the game. What I wouldn't do is automatically assume upon sitting down at his table, before anything, that I shouldn't trust this DM to have the best interests of the game at heart... until he does something to provoke that reaction. 

Is this one DM who was a friend the reason you don't trust any other DM in the world to run a good game when you sit down at their table?



Rechan said:


> There's more than just "This Dm isn't right for me". There's frustration and wasting time. People take _offense_ to stuff like this.




Wow, I guess gaming is serious stuff. As far as my thoughts go... I'm a grown man, I can leave a game anytime I want, thus I'm not going to stick around long enough for major frustration to build up if it's headed that way I'll excuse myself. I'm also not going to take offense at a DM or game that doesn't suit me... I'll chalk it up to a lesson learned and get back to finding a group and DM that does. So I guess for me it really is just a matter of...This Dm (and group) is or isn't right for me... simple as that.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?



 Same reason one might sleep with a person one doesn't love.

"_Boobs_", -- N


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Taking away vrs Not including... tomato tamato I guess... (wait that doesn't work as well when written does it...)
> 
> And I think the answer is because even in campaigns where the players always "trust" the DM, there will still be a number of "but whyyyyyys."
> 
> ...





So you're saying it's easier for DM's if WotC steps in and protects them from their players?   Ok, I guess I can understand this... but I just don't agree with the philosophyof removing it entirely... especially like I said, if it's clearly labeled a DM optional book.  I have never had players throw a hissy fit because they couldn't use something out of Unearthed Arcana in 3.5.


----------



## tyrlaan (Jun 2, 2010)

I keep formulating a response and then realize I'm having trouble writing up an informed comment because the term houserule clearly can cover many things to many people. 

Perhaps it might be a good exercise for folks to throw out some examples of what houserules they feel they could have done in the past but have become in recent times impossible/difficult/not worth the effort?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So you're saying it's easier for DM's if WotC steps in and protects them from their players?   Ok, I guess I can understand this...




Well if that's how you want to see it- that's how you want to see it.

I see it as WoTC not adding an added burden on me. 

Shrug.



> but I just don't agree with the philosophyof removing it entirely... especially like I said, if it's clearly labeled a DM optional book.  I have never had players throw a hissy fit because they couldn't use something out of Unearthed Arcana in 3.5.




Like I said, it's a cost/benefits thing. I find the benefits outweigh the cost. 

And I exaggerated the "hissyfit" nature of the players for comedic value (guess it fell short.)

But if you've never had players complain they can't have something (especially when it's cool) I'm impressed... I don't think I've ever met anyone like that before... except maybe a couple of Buddhist monks I met in an airport once.

Also add to the fact that I like cool stuff too...  It sucks when that cool stuff also makes me do extra work.  I kind of like that all the cool stuff just works.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 2, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Because some of us don't play with the same group all the time.
> 
> I can count on my hand the number of times I've had the same group for more than one campaign.
> 
> And if you've never played with this DM, or even know him, then you're not going to just instantly trust him.




This concept is so funny to me. I have a regular group but I also play at gamedays, pickup games at the gameshop, etc. 

Trusting the DM isn't something I worry about for short term games. I assume any unknown DM will try and run the best game that they can. If the actions of the DM during the game go the extra mile towards making the experience unpleasant I probably won't participate in another game run by that individual. 

It isn't a huge deal.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well if that's how you want to see it- that's how you want to see it.
> 
> I see it as WoTC not adding an added burden on me.
> 
> ...




Emphasis Mine: I never said that, and the fact that you believe this makes me wonder if you may have missed the point I made about Unearthed Arcana. 

IMO, there is a big difference between a book like Complete Warrior... which is designed for Player and DM use (and thus IMO should be pretty balanced) vs. a book like Unearthed Arcana a book designed for pure DM use with notes and sidebars on how these optional rules can effect the game. The great part about it is someone like you would never have to buy Unearthed Arcana since it's benefits would not outweigh the costs. Someone like me on the other hand would buy it, read it, and decideon a case by case basis whether I wanted to use any of it. Best of Both Worlds for the win!

As far as the cool stuff thing goes... I guess I don't mind putting in some extra work if something is cool enough, regardless of whether it is totally balanced or not.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis Mine: I never said that, and the fact that you believe this makes me wonder if you may have missed the point I made about Unearthed Arcana.
> 
> IMO, there is a big difference between a book like Complete Warrior... which is designed for Player and DM use (and thus IMO should be pretty balanced) vs. a book like Unearthed Arcana a book designed for pure DM use with notes and sidebars on how these optional rules can effect the game. The great part about it is someone like you would never have to buy Unearthed Arcana since it's benefits would not outweigh the costs. Someone like me on the other hand would buy it, read it, and decideon a case by case basis whether I wanted to use any of it. Best of Both Worlds for the win!




I don't think there's as big a difference. I mean, PRCs were in the DMG to begin with, yet they became a "must have" item pretty quickly. 

I don't think it really matters where it comes from- if it's a cool idea people will probably want to use it. 

Either way- I can see why WoTC would have incentive to not publish stuff like that, as opposed to stuff everyone can use without any extra work. 

Also, they risk a PRC redo... It's so cool it just becomes a part of the game, instead of an optional idea throwing everything off... And then the people who still DO use it as optional complain because now the game is starting to assume use of PRCs... An Ouroboros of annoyance.




> As far as the cool stuff thing goes... I guess I don't mind putting in some extra work if something is cool enough, regardless of whether it is totally balanced or not.




Neither do I... which is why I said I still add extra stuff to my game. I just prefer WoTC doesn't publish that stuff and cause me that extra work when I wasn't planning on doing it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I don't think there's as big a difference. I mean, PRCs were in the DMG to begin with, yet they became a "must have" item pretty quickly.
> 
> I don't think it really matters where it comes from- if it's a cool idea people will probably want to use it.




Because even in 3.0 the majority of PRC's were published in player oriented books, so while they may have started in the DMG... they were placed in player-centric books as opposed to DM centric books thus opening them up as a player resource. This is actually the exact opposite of what I am proposing.

And as to your second stattement... again, I never had a player pester me to use stuff out of DMG 2 or Unearthed Arcana.



Scribble said:


> Either way- I can see why WoTC would have incentive to not publish stuff like that, as opposed to stuff everyone can use without any extra work.




Not so sure WotC is sticking to this model. They published the hybrid rules in PHB 3... with cautions on using them in the game. And I'm certain we'll see more stuff like this as more things are published.



Scribble said:


> Also, they risk a PRC redo... It's so cool it just becomes a part of the game, instead of an optional idea throwing everything off... And then the people who still DO use it as optional complain because now the game is starting to assume use of PRCs... An Ouroboros of annoyance.




Hey! Like sticking the optional hybrid rules in a PHB instead of a DMG...




Scribble said:


> Neither do I... which is why I said I still add extra stuff to my game. I just prefer WoTC doesn't publish that stuff and cause me that extra work when I wasn't planning on doing it.




They force you to purchase and use all the stuff they publish? And if you houserule or disallow anything... how is there any difference?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I don't think there's as big a difference. I mean, PRCs were in the DMG to begin with, yet they became a "must have" item pretty quickly.



I think they became a "Must have" because every book that came out after the Core had PrCs next to Feats and Spells. PrCs were just another form of crunch that got treadmilled out. It was clearly a "HEY PLAYERS LOOK AT THIS" and it made them Legitimate, instead of hiding them in the DMG.

On the other hand. Compare this with magical items and other rewards. The DM is the one who hands out treasure, or the PCs have to _make_ it. The DM could even institute the Inherent bonuses houserule (Which is in the DMG2). And the other alternative rewards. While players may think they "MUST HAVE" loot, loot is one of those things that is completely in the DM's control (well, assuming you don't start above level 1 ).


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Because even in 3.0 the majority of PRC's were published in player oriented books, so while they may have started in the DMG... they were placed in player-centric books as opposed to DM centric books thus opening them up as a player resource. This is actually the exact opposite of what I am proposing.




Maybe- I wonder which came first though... chicken or egg? Did they move to the player books because they were liked so much that players just wanted them as player resources?

Don't know- I'm not privy to WoTCs info.

The point being though that once it's out there- no matter what book it's in, it's out there and becomes a cool thing for someone to want to play with. (And why wouldn't they? It's cool!)

It reminds me of Vampire when the Sabbat stuff came out.... suddenly eeeeeeeveryone wanted to be a Sabbat. 

Just human nature I guess.



> And as to your second stattement... again, I never had a player pester me to use stuff out of DMG 2 or Unearthed Arcana.




Great.  I did.

Guess we're even!




> Not so sure WotC is sticking to this model. They published the hybrid rules in PHB 3... with cautions on using them in the game. And I'm certain we'll see more stuff like this as more things are published.
> 
> Hey! Like sticking the optional hybrid rules in a PHB instead of a DMG...




 Yeah- I'm sure they will from time to time, exceptions to every rule and what not.  It seems though, that they've done a lot to cut down on the number of "optional unbalancing cool elements" in the game.

(I'm also not sure how the hybrid rules work out... Are they unbalanced? Just potentially unbalanced? Or actualkly balanced? I don't own PHB3 so I haven't looked at them much yet.)

And who knows- maybe they'll swing the pendulum back towards offering optional/unbalanced stuff. I cannot tell the future, and I don't set their business plans.

All I can say is that they seemed to have changed focus away from those elements, and I have a thought on why. Feel free to disagree (as you obviously do) it will not hurt my feelings.  




> They force you to purchase and use all the stuff they publish? And if you houserule or disallow anything... how is there any difference?




Why is it that people always jump to the "They don't force you to buy it" thing?

Even if I don't own a book, chances are if the book has something a player thinks is neat that thing will make its way to my table via a player saying "Can I, can I?"

I don't houserule that much- usually only to add something we think is fun.

Anyway- my original point was really why I felt WoTC was doing much less of the optional unbalancing factors.  

Sorry you seem to have lost an element you enjoyed.

Happy gaming otherwise!


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Maybe- I wonder which came first though... chicken or egg? Did they move to the player books because they were liked so much that players just wanted them as player resources?
> 
> Don't know- I'm not privy to WoTCs info.




Well let's think for a minute... The DMG was released in...Sept 2000, I believe the first player-centric splatbook (featuring PRC's) was Sword & Fist which was released in January 2001, that's a 3 month span between the two. Now unless development and lead times have drastically increased since 2000, I can only assume WotC purposefully put them in player centric products since these products were designed before any measure of popularity could be gauged.



Scribble said:


> The point being though that once it's out there- no matter what book it's in, it's out there and becomes a cool thing for someone to want to play with. (And why wouldn't they? It's cool!)
> 
> It reminds me of Vampire when the Sabbat stuff came out.... suddenly eeeeeeeveryone wanted to be a Sabbat.
> 
> Just human nature I guess.




Oh, you mean like the Player's Guide to the Sabatt? Which was a guide for players to create and run Sabatt PC's. I don't think this is exactly the same thing as a part of the game designed to be purely GM territory, and only in GM books. This is like claiming the Dragonblooded in Exalted were only suppose to be GM antagonists and not played as characters because they first showed up as antagonists... yet they got a fatsplat for players. 




Scribble said:


> Great. I did.
> 
> Guess we're even!.




I'm curious what exactly did your players throw a fit about not being able to use from these books?





Scribble said:


> Yeah- I'm sure they will from time to time, exceptions to every rule and what not. It seems though, that they've done a lot to cut down on the number of "optional unbalancing cool elements" in the game.
> 
> (I'm also not sure how the hybrid rules work out... Are they unbalanced? Just potentially unbalanced? Or actualkly balanced? I don't own PHB3 so I haven't looked at them much yet.)
> 
> ...




Uhmm... I'm not trying to hurt your feelings (not even sure where that came from). So what exactly are your thoughts on why? 




Scribble said:


> Why is it that people always jump to the "They don't force you to buy it" thing?
> 
> Even if I don't own a book, chances are if the book has something a player thinks is neat that thing will make its way to my table via a player saying "Can I, can I?"




Why is it that some people often exaggerate beyond it being their own oppinion (as opposed to a real fact) that they somehow *must* use things from various books in D&D?

I guess I'm so used to running 3.5 where I as DM say these are the books I am using in my campaign, and then listing anything from those books I disallow... that I haven't had the experience of a player showing up with some random, out of nowhere, game element and trying to force it on me. Of course if they did I would just say no or yes depending on my evaluation of it. 

I must say after reading your second paragraph, I find it strange that (especially with DDI) one of your playershasn't requested the hybrid rules, especially as you've had players who went through DMG 2 and Unearthed Arcana scouring for stuff to use.



Scribble said:


> I don't houserule that much- usually only to add something we think is fun.
> 
> Anyway- my original point was really why I felt WoTC was doing much less of the optional unbalancing factors.
> 
> ...




No need to be sorry, I didn't loose an element I enjoyed... I still have my 3.5 books (and the hybrid rules for 4e). Though I would like to see some more of these elements in 4e. Perhaps the Dark Sun Defiler rules will also be this type of game element.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Why is it that some people often exaggerate beyond it being their own oppinion (as opposed to a real fact) that they somehow *must* use things from various books in D&D?
> 
> I guess I'm so used to running 3.5 where I as DM say these are the books I am using in my campaign, and then listing anything from those books I disallow... that I haven't had the experience of a player showing up with some random, out of nowhere, game element and trying to force it on me. Of course if they did I would just say no or yes depending on my evaluation of it.
> 
> I must say after reading your second paragraph, I find it strange that (especially with DDI) one of your playershasn't requested the hybrid rules, especially as you've had players who went through DMG 2 and Unearthed Arcana scouring for stuff to use.




Here's the thing. In 4E, I'm able to run a campaign where the default assumption is that anything goes. If it is found in a 4E product, they can use it. They can go out any buy whatever items are appropriate, use whatever feats and paragon paths they want, they can plunder DDI to their heart's content, and in the end, I can sit down at the table, and nothing gamebreaking is going to surprise me. 

I couldn't really do that in 3.5. Not all sourcebooks were created equal, nor dragon articles. Certain combinations of items, feats, prestige classes... were problematic. There was a general agreement to avoid anything too ridiculous in the core rules, and that anything outside of those was off-limits. But it was a bit of a headache when a player would ask if they could use something interesting they discovered somewhere, and I would have to sit down and analyze it myself to see if it would be fine within the game. 

I really, really like not having to do that anymore. 

I mean, I get what you miss - having some exceptional items to surprise PCs with, having unforgivably lethal traps and monsters to really fill them with fear - I get it. I could probably even get behind an optional book that delved into some of that, but was very up front about it being at the DM's discretion only. 

Of course, I'm also of the opinion you could probably capture most of the flavor and ability of these things without needing to go outside the core rules at all - so I'd be a fan of seeing more along those lines, too. 

But I really don't want stuff in the main rulebooks that a DM has to veto. I don't want to deal with that hassle. I'm already frustrated at the few problem childs that have cropped up in 4E, like Expertise. But they are few and far between, and isolated enough to easily remove or add at my leisure. 

Even hybrids are welcome in how easily they fit into the rules. Sure, it has a comment about being careful how you use them - but more to try and steer PCs away from _inferior _choices. Most characters aren't going to stumble into a ranger/warlock whose stats are spread unacceptably thin - but the potential is there more than with standard characters, thus the warning. 

I really don't see it as the same thing. "Use at your own risk" is a useful warning, but also a dangerous one - it doesn't always work. And even when it does, it can put a burden on the DM to make that call. I can entirely understand wanting that option there, but my own experience, like Scribble's, has benefited from it not being present in the game.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

@MrMyth: I never suggested this type of game material become core, from the beginning of my argument I held up Unearthed Arcana (a DM-centric book of *optional* rules for a DM to implement (or not) in his campaign, with accompanying advice and sidebars explaining the ramifications and effects) as my model for a similar 4e book. 

In your post you've already said you wouldn't be against such a product... what baffles me are those that are against something like this book being published for 4e and citing anything from super strong-willed/whiny players who will force them to accept the material into their game (or force them to spend a long time saying no to the player)... to horrible DM's who will use the optional material to squash out the fun of their players and shatter the enjoyment of the game. 


So basically I feel the message is... you shouldn't get your fun because I don't know how to/ don't want to have fun with it...even if it's in a separate optional book. Just seems like some pretty poor excuses that will probably stop 4e from ever catering to a wider number of playstyles.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well let's think for a minute... The DMG was released in...Sept 2000, I believe the first player-centric splatbook (featuring PRC's) was Sword & Fist which was released in January 2001, that's a 3 month span between the two. Now unless development and lead times have drastically increased since 2000, I can only assume WotC purposefully put them in player centric products since these products were designed before any measure of popularity could be gauged.




Yeah- I'm guessing they saw the opportunity there to make an ongoing stream of add-ons. (And with the popularity of kits, it probably wasn't so big of a stretch.)

Shrug. 

Either way it's still an element that relies on the DM to either say no you can't, or do extra work to include it.



> Oh, you mean like the Player's Guide to the Sabatt? Which was a guide for players to create and run Sabatt PC's. I don't think this is exactly the same thing as a part of the game designed to be purely GM territory, and only in GM books. This is like claiming the Dragonblooded in Exalted were only suppose to be GM antagonists and not played as characters because they first showed up as antagonists... yet they got a fatsplat for players.




Ummm yes... they were a "cool thing" so suddenly everyone wanted to play one.. The point being that if something is "cool" human nature makes people want to take part in said thing. The thing which is cool in this case being the Sabbat. 

IN D&D 1/2 demon being a cool thing.. Or Drow... Or 1/2 Dragon... Or any number of monster races... 



> I'm curious what exactly did your players throw a fit about not being able to use from these books?




Dude seriously? It was like over 4 years ago for Unearthed Arcana!

For DMGII I think it was magic items of some type.. I have a player who is the ultimate power gamer type... He's constantly looking for new power builds.

Anyway is this ok? Will you accept I'm not lying here or do you need me to provide a letter of reference from my players indicating such events happened in the past? 




> Uhmm... I'm not trying to hurt your feelings (not even sure where that came from). So what exactly are your thoughts on why?




Crazy... here I thought that's what all my posts were trying to  convey... my thoughts on why they'd moved away from stuff balanced by the DM saying no...

Guess I have an inability to type/think today. 

I will try to summarize:

1. In the past some stuff was made that relied on either the DM doing extra work to include it, or saying no it won't be included.

2. Extra work is annoying- saying no makes people sad.  

3. Dilemma!

4. Why not make stuff balanced so theres not a lot of extra work to use it, and more DMs have less evaluating to do? 

5. Less work is good,  saying yes makes people happy. 

6. Gamers have more incentive to buy stuff because their DMs are more likely to let them use the stuff inside.

7. Gamers buying books makes WoTC happy.

8. Scribble has less work to do when he DMs, and can more easily help everyone have a good time so he approves. (He can, however, see why others might want the other stuff, and feels bad for them since they aren't getting something they want, but not THAT bad, since he is getting what he wants, and his selfish human nature makes him care more about his own wants and needs more then what happens to others at least when it comes to hobbies. In grade school he probably would have said.. NYA NYA, but now he is polite and feels bad for others. But not that bad as was previously mentioned.)




> Why is it that some people often exaggerate beyond it being their own oppinion (as opposed to a real fact) that they somehow *must* use things from various books in D&D?




Huh?  I think you might be reading too much into things here. I am confused. 



> I guess I'm so used to running 3.5 where I as DM say these are the books I am using in my campaign, and then listing anything from those books I disallow... that I haven't had the experience of a player showing up with some random, out of nowhere, game element and trying to force it on me. Of course if they did I would just say no or yes depending on my evaluation of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> @MrMyth: I never suggested this type of game material become core, from the beginning of my argument I held up Unearthed Arcana (a DM-centric book of *optional* rules for a DM to implement (or not) in his campaign, with accompanying advice and sidebars explaining the ramifications and effects) as my model for a similar 4e book.
> 
> In your post you've already said you wouldn't be against such a product... what baffles me are those that are against something like this book being published for 4e and citing anything from super strong-willed/whiny players who will force them to accept the material into their game (or force them to spend a long time saying no to the player)... to horrible DM's who will use the optional material to squash out the fun of their players and shatter the enjoyment of the game.
> 
> So basically I feel the message is... you shouldn't get your fun because I don't know how to/ don't want to have fun with it...even if it's in a separate optional book. Just seems like some pretty poor excuses that will probably stop 4e from ever catering to a wider number of playstyles.




I admit - it might seem an unfair stance, that we should demand such rules never manifest even if there is a way for them to help your game without causing problems elsewhere. But while theorizing an optional supplement is easy, the actual production might be more problematic. 

As others have said - thus far, 4E _doesn't_ have anything that really falls into that 'purely optional' category. Could you introduce such material without having players still expect to see it? Isn't one of 4E's underlying goals to make everything accessible, interchangible, core? I can certainly see the argument that breaking away from that goal could lead down a bad path for the game. I don't know if I'm sold on it, mind you - but I don't think it fair to dismiss such an argument as simply "complaints about whiny players and horrible DMs". 

Even outside of that - let's assume they could produce such a book of house rules, a 4E Unearthed Arcana, without causing any problems at all for those who want to simply ignore it. 

Would it be profitable for them to do so? Would the market be big enough to make it worthwhile? And would it be worth putting resources into that when they could instead have focused on a product that would actually be of interest to the majority of DMs?

I don't honestly know the answer to those questions. But I think they are worth asking. And to be fair, we've seen some smaller signs that WotC may be testing these waters - pushing boundaries with hybrid rules, and some of the material in the DMG2 (inherent magic bonus system, alternate rewards like legendary boons), the power boost for Dark Sun campaigns (themes), the Dragon article on legendary 'Drizzt' weapons and items, etc.

And I'm ok with that. If it ends up looking worthwhile for them, and they can present such material without it causing strife elsewhere, I'd be all for more of this - but I'd want them to take the careful approach and do it right. And like I mentioned early - I suspect you can get quite a bit of what people are looking for without having to truly break way from the system itself. So I think there are definitely options there - without needing to necessarily release an entire book of gamebreaking items. 

Personally, I'd be a fan of seeing more optional house rules and ideas in the DMG3 (if it ever comes along), and from there seeing what demand there is for more.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

@MrMyth:  Ok, here's something I'd be curious to ask people... The Scales of War backgrounds are in the CB... and have been almost universally called out as unbalanced (against each other and against the later backgrounds, though I feel they are certainly interesting and quirky in their own way.)... yet they haven't been removed and haven't been changed.  Personally in my campaigns they just aren't allowed (unless I decide to specifically use some or all of them)... but I mean does everyone else allow their players to select them?  If not how do DM's stop their players from taking them since there is usually such a problem with this?

As to profitability, sheesh with the DDI giving almost everything away, IMO, this (and fluff) might be one of the few types of books that may still be profitable, since even if they did make the rules available in the CB (and they wouldn't necessarily have to since they're not "official")... the advice and ramifications would still only be in the book and many would probably want that advice and guidance.


----------



## Jasperak (Jun 3, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Even outside of that - let's assume they could produce such a book of house rules, a 4E Unearthed Arcana, without causing any problems at all for those who want to simply ignore it.
> 
> Would it be profitable for them to do so? Would the market be big enough to make it worthwhile? And would it be worth putting resources into that when they could instead have focused on a product that would actually be of interest to the majority of DMs?




I don't play 4e, but one of its clear selling points to me is that the rule system does not vary much from table to table. Its "everything is core" philosophy, reliance of some on the CB, and minimal 3pp options, keep everyone on the same playing field. Very similar in my opinion and experience to the original DDM game.

A 4e-version of Unearthed Arcana might be worthwhile for some DMs and players, those that want to expand their game. Though I think the majority of players (including some DMs) would reject it. I would expect it to put more power in the hands of the DM. It would be saying "here are some options, use them or not, we don't care." I think the more options and house rules, the less likely the game would remain consistent across the tables. 4e to me is the Monopoly, Hero Quest, Stratego, or Axis & Allies of the RPG industry. A game I can rely on to be the same no matter the DM, regardless of his ability, competence, or ability to weave a story. Just my limited personal experience.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?





Imaro said:


> I figure, if you're taking the time to run the game and have invited me to play with you... then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I mean what's the worse that can happen... I realize this DM isn't right for me?





Imaro said:


> IMO, there is a big difference between a book like Complete Warrior... which is designed for Player and DM use (and thus IMO should be pretty balanced) vs. a book like Unearthed Arcana a book designed for pure DM use with notes and sidebars on how these optional rules can effect the game.





Imaro said:


> Trust, in the context of a DM, is that the DM has the best interest of the overall game at heart. Catering to a player's best interest can step all over everyone else's fun.



These comments all make assumptions about the role and power of the GM which are potentially controversial. They assume that the GM has a monopoly on deciding what rules are used for the game at the table. Related to that, they assume that the GM has a _responsibility_ for deciding what rules are used at the table, and that this is part of the GM's responsibility to provide a fun game. They assume that in certain contexts rules can undermine fun by producing conflict among players, and that the GM, in helping to resolve those conflicts, is going to have to make choices about which rules and to be used at the table.

This is all very traditional for D&D, but 4e seems to self-consciously have moved away from this sort of understanding of the GM's role, towards something that is more akin to modern RPGs. Look at page 189 of the DMG:

As Dungeon Master, you wear several hats: storyteller, rules arbiter, actor, adventure designer, and writer. Some DMs like to add a sixth hat to that stack: rules designer.​
This makes it pretty clear what the core functions are of a 4e GM: to oversee the gameworld, to provide adversity for the PCs (in the form of encounters), to do the bulk of the narrative work for the RPG (describing what things look like, what is actually happening in the world as a result of action resolution results) and to make rules calls. It is not primarily to design the rules. The rules are presupposed.

If we take this a bit further, we can divide the 4e rules into 5 components: character build rules (levelling, power and feat acquistion etc), reward rules (XP, treasure, milestones), encounter building rules, action resolution rules (primarily combat and skill challenges), and game elements (powers, feats, monsters, magic items etc). Although the rulebooks don't say expressly who has responsibility for each of these, they contain some pretty clear implications.

It is taken for granted that the character build and action resolution rules will be as set out in the PHB and DMG (and when the rulebooks break those rules, as with psionics and hybrids, they give a lot of support to explain and integrate the new approach). Page 189 of the DMG, in talking about the GM being rules designer, appears mostly to be contemplating minor tweaks to the action resolution rules.

The game clearly assumes that GMs will be building encounters more-or-less along the lines set out in the DMG (for example, a lot of powers are only useful if the GM builds encounters containing interesting terrain), and that the reward rules will be applied more-or-less as written (for example, the maths relies upon enhancement bonuses and paragon paths rely upon action points). That said, the rulebooks also canvass a few different options for rewards (eg item-free enhancement bonuses, adding rituals into treasure parcels, relying more-or-less heavily on player wish lists for items, dropping XP in favour of an 8-to-10 encounter approach). But even though p 121 talks about varying the rate of advancement, this isn't really supported (eg there are no alternative treasure parcels for a game with slower XP advancement).

The biggest area of flexibility is obviously with respect to game elements used. Here, the rulebooks assume that the GM will be deciding what monsters and traps are used (and provide support for the GM to design new monsters and traps). They assume that the players will decide what races, classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, powers and feats are used (and provide lots of opportunities for players to buy new books with this sort of stuff in it!). Magic items are in a middle ground - players are assumed to control the introduction of some items (via rituals and wish lists) but the GM also has some control here (via treasure placement and artefacts).

These divisions of responsibility aren't arbitrary, either. If part of the game experience, for a player, is expressing him/herself through her PC, it makes sense that the player has primary control over introducing those elements. Conversely, if the GM's role is to provide adversity and narrate the gameworld, it makes sense that the GM has primary control over elements like monsters and traps. It equally makes sense that the GM is given more freedom of design - unlike a player, who typically identifies very strongly with his/her PC's interests, a GM does not identify his/her own interest as a participant in the game with the interests of his/her monsters, and thus the GM can be relied upont to build balanced monsters (provided sound guidelines are presented). Players, on the other hand, who have a standing temptation to overpower their PCs, are obliged to draw upon independently designed lists of game elements (and this also sells books!). Looked at in this light, the absence (for example) of magical research rules is a feature, not a bug.

Once the players design their PCs (following the character build rules), and the GM combines monster, traps and so on into encounters (following the encounter building guidelines), it is the function of the action resolution and reward mechanics to unite the players' PCs with the GM's situations so as to create a compelling fantasy gaming experience. It therefore makes sense that neither the players nor the GM is given authority over those rules - rather, the game designers provide them, with the implicit guarantee that the rules will deliver the promised experience. It is not up to the GM to unilaterally decide whether or not this guarantee has been kept - it is up to the table as a whole. Thus the GM has no special power to vary these fundamental aspects of the rules.

As I said above, D&D traditionally has a different attitude to the purpose of the rules and the role of the GM - in particular, the rules are generally seen as being simply a tool that _the GM _then uses to deliver the compelling fantasy gaming experience. In that traditional sort of approach, it is natural to give the GM more authority over the rules. That traditional approach also creates a lot of scope for player/GM conflict of the sort that Scribble and others are talking about upthread.

But 4e departs from this traditional model and adopts a more modern approach. Rightly or wrongly, it is premised on the assumption that if a GM and players follow the rules of the game, a compelling experience will result. In this respect it is like HeroQuest, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Burning Wheel etc.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2010)

Jasperak said:


> I don't play 4e, but one of its clear selling points to me is that the rule system does not vary much from table to table. Its "everything is core" philosophy, reliance of some on the CB, and minimal 3pp options, keep everyone on the same playing field. Very similar in my opinion and experience to the original DDM game.



Do you wander much from table to table?

I mean, not to derail the discussion, but I'm curious why this is a selling point.  Surely the only table that matters where you game, right?  If I have houserules at my table, how is that a bad thing for you?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Because even in 3.0 the majority of PRC's were published in player oriented books, so while they may have started in the DMG... they were placed in player-centric books as opposed to DM centric books thus opening them up as a player resource. This is actually the exact opposite of what I am proposing.




I disagree with your interpretation of the materials, that the follow-up splat books were oriented toward either the player or the DM. They were general thematic books following the model of the 2e handbooks and I doubt it would have made any economic sense to break them up into player-oriented and DM-oriented books.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> @MrMyth: Ok, here's something I'd be curious to ask people... The Scales of War backgrounds are in the CB... and have been almost universally called out as unbalanced (against each other and against the later backgrounds, though I feel they are certainly interesting and quirky in their own way.)... yet they haven't been removed and haven't been changed. Personally in my campaigns they just aren't allowed (unless I decide to specifically use some or all of them)... but I mean does everyone else allow their players to select them? If not how do DM's stop their players from taking them since there is usually such a problem with this?




They are around in my current game. The DM who ran it before me just asked people not take backgrounds unless they were genuinely appropriate, and most people went with that. Outside of that, I've just focused on the backgrounds themselves - if someone takes the "Chosen by Destiny" background to get extra hp, they might also find themselves called out to fulfill their destiny in character. 

Honestly, I've got dozens of house rules I've considered using - I'm not completely satisfied with the balance of the game, and could easily draw up a list of changes I'd make if I had my way. But none of those changes are truly necessary - I know that I can absolutely allow the SoW backgrounds, and Expertise, and anything from Dragon magazine, and the game won't _break_. Characters might be a little stronger than normal, but the discrepancy isn't game changing, and that is what I applaud about the system. 



Imaro said:


> As to profitability, sheesh with the DDI giving almost everything away, IMO, this (and fluff) might be one of the few types of books that may still be profitable, since even if they did make the rules available in the CB (and they wouldn't necessarily have to since they're not "official")... the advice and ramifications would still only be in the book and many would probably want that advice and guidance.




Maybe so. But I think it is easy to proclaim that, and hard to know for sure. I suspect WotC is in a much better place to make that judgement - they do a good bit of research to figure out what products people want. If such a product would really have a solid audience, than I wouldn't be surprised if we do indeed see it eventually.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 3, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Do you wander much from table to table?
> 
> I mean, not to derail the discussion, but I'm curious why this is a selling point. Surely the only table that matters where you game, right? If I have houserules at my table, how is that a bad thing for you?




We've got 3 or 4 DMs that rotate amidst our group. Having unified rules makes things a lot easier. 

We also participate in the RPGA. Again, having a guarantee on how things work from table to table is very useful. 

Now, someone else's game using house rules doesn't impact ours at all, of course. But the more things WotC releases that actively _require_ the DM to say 'yes' or 'no', and the more the playing experience starts automatically changing from one moment to the next.


----------



## .5 Elf (Jun 3, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am curious, if a guy wants to make a rogue with powers from PHB and Martial Power, you won't let them build it out in the CB? Why is that?





Sorry I was out of town a bit, I tried to respond from my smartphone but the forum kept eating the post before I could hit send.

I have a few reasons why I don't allow CB at my table.

I don't want laptops at my game table. Not saying they are a bad thing, or good thing but I feel they break immersion just a bit more than I like. Things like DDI and CB encourage laptop play to me. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I yearn for a simpler time. The good old days when pencils, paper, books, and dice still held sway.

Lack of support for Houserules. I houserule to a very very large extent and if you used CB you have a bunch of changes you have to make to the finished product anyhow.

I use non standard char sheets. True we could just transcribe them once done using CB but why bother?

I limit source / splat books and I don't want to tempt the players with options I don't allow at my table. Sort of the way people referred to how 3 and 3.5's glut of "official" source material encouraged players to wheedle the DM to allow game breaking stuff at their table. 

System Mastery. This may sound a bit crazy but I find that CB is a bit like calculators and cash registers in that people come to rely on the machine and whatever input they get from it regardless of whether or not it makes sense. I want my players to understand the game at least insofar as their character goes. I am amazed how stupid people become when they let machines do their thinking for them.

Especially odd is the fact that I am a slave to spell-check utilities myself. I think this is from a mild form of dyslexia in my case (runs in my family) but I was never tested. Still I try to proofread after spell checking, not just accept the machine got it all right for me.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2010)

Again, not to derail, but I find this a curious question.  See below.







MrMyth said:


> We've got 3 or 4 DMs that rotate amidst our group. Having unified rules makes things a lot easier.



They rotate DMing within the same campaign?  Or are they different campaigns?  Because that describes my group too, but every GM runs his own game, and yeah, they could use different houserule sets.  They could even be using completely different systems altogether. 


			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> We also participate in the RPGA. Again, having a guarantee on how things work from table to table is very useful.



Well, the RPGA already had pretty strict guidelines about what was in play and what wasn't during the 2e, 3e and 3.5 eras (at least) , so I don't think that was an issue.


			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> Now, someone else's game using house rules doesn't impact ours at all, of course. But the more things WotC releases that actively _require_ the DM to say 'yes' or 'no', and the more the playing experience starts automatically changing from one moment to the next.



I'll buy that, but I'm curious if you see table to table divergence as a bad thing in and of itself.  Because I don't, and I like having options to choose from.  To me, that's a good thing in and of itself, and table to table divergence is something that I don't care about one way or another.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 3, 2010)

Hobo said:


> They rotate DMing within the same campaign? Or are they different campaigns? Because that describes my group too, but every GM runs his own game, and yeah, they could use different houserule sets. They could even be using completely different systems altogether.




Often running seperate campaigns, but some event of overlap. In recent years, for example, one DM ran H1 (Keep on the Shadowfell) and then another DM ran H2 (Thunderspire Labyrinth) and then I ran H3 (Pyramid of Shadows) with most characters remaining the same between the adventures. This was partly just to give everyone a chance to get adjusted to 4E, so wasn't our usual style, but still played out fine. 

Following this, one of the DMs stepped up with his home campaign, which ran basically through all of the Heroic and Paragon tiers. I then took over and continued it into the Epic tier (to give the PCs a chance to explore epic 4E). While I continued to use my friends setting, since the game moved more into epic planar elements, it felt like a solid split - but still, about half the characters remained the same, and there continued to be callbacks and other elements to earlier in the campaign. 

And we generally each had some slight differences in house rules and play styles - but as long as we were open about those, there was no problem. None were extreme enough to cause any noticable changes in the characters themselves. 



Hobo said:


> Well, the RPGA already had pretty strict guidelines about what was in play and what wasn't during the 2e, 3e and 3.5 eras (at least) , so I don't think that was an issue.




Except that in and of itself was a problem - someone who was used to their home game, joining the RPGA, suddenly had a lot of changes to deal with, rules being altered for balance in a living environment, different approaches to levelling and treasure and more. Now, some of that still remains, but to an immensely smaller degree. Which I've found makes it a much more accessible environment to newer players and casual players - and I think that is a very good thing. 



Hobo said:


> I'll buy that, but I'm curious if you see table to table divergence as a bad thing in and of itself. Because I don't, and I like having options to choose from. To me, that's a good thing in and of itself, and table to table divergence is something that I don't care about one way or another.




It's a tough question to tackle. I think D&D's ability to support vastly different playstyles and games is one of its strengths. At the same time, I think having the default be a shared experience has a lot of advantages. Which is why I'm a fan of DMGs presenting house rules that help different playstyles (such as inherent bonuses and alternate treasure rewards), along with continuing in the core rules to push the boundaries and incorporate more diverse elements (as with hybrids and themes). 

But at the same time, I don't want a book of magic items that are completely out of balance with the rest of the system. Even with big warnings to use them at DM discretion, I think that is starting to walk down a very dangerous path. 

Instead, I want more artifacts and other items that already somewhat fill that role, but do have decent DM advice and support on how to move them in and out of the campaign. And I'd really prefer that was the approach taken with any item along those lines.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 3, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Because that describes my group too, but every GM runs his own game, and yeah, they could use different houserule sets.  They could even be using completely different systems altogether.



 In my group most of us are GMs, and we switch off between vastly different systems.

"[/aside]", -- N


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2010)

Nifft said:


> In my group most of us are GMs, and we switch off between vastly different systems.



That's actually normally the case for us as well.  We went from a lengthy 3.5 game (wide open on options, no real restrictions), to a more house-ruled 3.5, to a BRP Cthulhu game.  After which we entertained both d20 Star Wars and 4e Shadowrun before those two potential GMs had to bow out of the DM spot due to the anticipation of an unreliable schedule short term.  So we went back to wide open 3.5 for the time being.

Which actually makes it sound like we entertain more vastly different systems than we actually implement.  That's probably fair.


----------



## Jasperak (Jun 4, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Do you wander much from table to table?
> 
> I mean, not to derail the discussion, but I'm curious why this is a selling point.  Surely the only table that matters where you game, right?  If I have house rules at my table, how is that a bad thing for you?




First off, your home game doesn't matter with regards to my point. The only things that matter are the game assumptions that are brought to each individual table, whether they are at home, pick-up games/game days, or conventions. If we gamed together on a regular basis, then I would expect that we would be on the same page concerning house rules. For instance, say one of your house rules was removing healing surges. For me to play I would have to accept that or find another group. Simple as that. Those assumptions are the only effect of house rules that matter.

So you know where I am coming from, my experience with 4e is limited. I played in a 2 month run through KOTS with a DM that I suspect would be a good DM in any system. I also played in 2 game days and one session of a pick up game. I also played three or so rounds with DDM. Concerning 4e, for three different DM I noticed varying styles that did not seem to surface much through the game; meaning I had the same experience playing the game regardless of the DM. Same with DDM. I had experiences that I could rely on that lead me to believe the game would remain consistent whenever I wanted to play 4e.  

The major caveat is that these were all public venues using pre-prepared modules and scenarios, so I am aware that my experience may not match yours, other's, or those that play exclusively at home. 

But my point is that I think 4e plays in similar manner regardless of the DM's personal style. That is awesome for those that like the game. It makes it something consistent within itself and without regard to differences in DMs or players for that matter.

So back to my example earlier concerning removing healing surges as a house rule. That is a massive rule change that would make a core rule game far different from a house rule game. That rule may work for your group for the style you want to play, but it makes it far more difficult for a player that relies on that assumption to integrate back into a core rule game. Think of how using spell points instead of prepared spell slots from 3e Unearthed Arcana would change game play.

This leads back to what happened with 1e, 2e, and 3e. I think WOTC understands this by making a rule assumption that all rules are core.

As for it being a selling-point, I can only use analogies. My base assumption is that D&D4e is the brand leader in our industry. Think of Coke or Pepsi, they are the soft-drink brand leaders and are consistent regardless of where you go: California, Massachusetts, Texas, or Virginia, you can count on them to be the same. Call of Cthulhu is another example that is within our own industry. Regardless of edition the game is the same. WOW is a great example of this as well. Everybody is playing the same game and drinking the same soda that they are accustomed to.

I believe they have strengthen the brand, because they can advertise what the game is and what to expect. Not so with any of the earlier editions. Pre-3e rules sets were billed as toolboxes. There are too many examples of these games where the addition of house rules and options allowed the DM and players to create the game they wanted, and those would barely resemble the same rule set found at other tables. 

I could tell you a story about a younger player I had in a 3e game that had wanted to play an Elven Bladesinger. I wouldn't let him use the version that allowed full spell progression, but I allowed him to choose the version that offered something like four spell-levels of advancement that I would have played in heartbeat. He had a great concept and it was a great class (maybe prestige I cannot remember), but he was playing from a different set of rules assumptions than I was. I was the DM. He continued to play but created another character instead. In my opinion 4e has removed that headache by their assumption that every rule they release is core--implying balanced and fun for play. That to me is a great selling point.

What happens at your table is yours and your player's business, and not for me or anyone else to judge. But don't come to my table expecting some grand house rule that you are used to, that you read in 4e Unearthed Arcana be added to my game. And same in converse, don't expect me to join your table if you have a house rule that runs counter to all of my experience from the core rules.

Hope I have made my original point more clear. This is one of the longest posts I have written (I hate long posts), but hope I have presented my case in a manner in which, while you may not agree, you can see where I am coming from.


----------

