PDA

View Full Version : I had a weight thought on splat books



danzibr
2011-06-13, 11:46 AM
And by splat books I mean anything non-core. Maybe I'm using the word wrong.

Anyways, so I was reading the playgrounders buy D&D thread and something occurred to me. At some point, *all* PrC's and base classes and feats were homebrew. Gary Gygax was just like, "Hmm, let's write some stuff up." I'm sure he talked to people and they got a little bit of balance going on, then published.

Splat books have lots of different authors, but they surely just thought of something cool, penned down some stats, tried to make sure it wasn't broken and published it.

This thread isn't intended to start any sort of conversation, just sharing my thought with the rest of the playgrounders. All D&D was homebrew once.

Yora
2011-06-13, 12:19 PM
Yes.

So what?

Honest Tiefling
2011-06-13, 12:23 PM
Now I wonder if TSR or WOTC ever had alignment debates...

Solaris
2011-06-13, 12:39 PM
Now I wonder if TSR or WOTC ever had alignment debates...

Undoubtedly. A failure to agree on anything is likely why there's so much disagreement between the various books.

Kalirren
2011-06-13, 12:52 PM
Yeah, you're right. Welcome to the light, friend.

People sort of take it for granted here for some reason, but there's this whole canonistic attitude towards a certain set of books, or text, that really goes against the spirit in which D&D as a pastime started. People used to run games out of random sourcebooks alone before there was a core at all...

Yora
2011-06-13, 01:06 PM
There's this wonderful paragraph in a 2nd Edition PHB or DMG that say something like "these rules are just a basic framework, you're encouranged to add rules for things not covered here or alter or even drop other rules that don't fit with the style of play you want to run".

In 3rd Ed. RAW is God!

SuperFerret
2011-06-13, 01:14 PM
There's this wonderful paragraph in a 2nd Edition PHB or DMG that say something like "these rules are just a basic framework, you're encouranged to add rules for things not covered here or alter or even drop other rules that don't fit with the style of play you want to run".

In 3rd Ed. RAW is God!

I wouldn't say that, the "rules are guidelines" spirit is still there. Really, the RAW is God attitude came with the internet.

JonestheSpy
2011-06-13, 02:15 PM
I wouldn't say that, the "rules are guidelines" spirit is still there. Really, the RAW is God attitude came with the internet.

Yep. Published stuff tends to be valued on ye olde interwebs because they're a common frame of reference that's easier to discuss than comparing every DM's houserules, but that means there's been the unfortunate tendency to elevate them more than they deserve.

Everything is optional, but some things are more optional than others. The SRD is the foundation, what players can assume are going to be the rules unless specifically told otherwise. All the splatbooks are just suggestions, and choosing to incorporate them into a game is as much a houserule as any other change to Core.

Ozreth
2011-06-13, 03:24 PM
There's this wonderful paragraph in a 2nd Edition PHB or DMG that say something like "these rules are just a basic framework, you're encouranged to add rules for things not covered here or alter or even drop other rules that don't fit with the style of play you want to

It's crazy how many people don't realize that almost this exact same thing is written in the 3.x DMG and I believe the 4e one as well and it is still how i play 3.5.

The Big Dice
2011-06-13, 04:11 PM
I wouldn't say that, the "rules are guidelines" spirit is still there. Really, the RAW is God attitude came with the internet.
Actually it came with Gary Gygax writing AD&D articles for Dragon magazine.

Pink
2011-06-13, 04:17 PM
Actually it came with Gary Gygax writing AD&D articles for Dragon magazine.

+1

I agree that the RAW is everything attitude more than likely came about less because of the internet, and more because the creators of the base stuff starting answering questions concerning aspects of the game, and their answers were taken as the authority on the game instead of 'When I GM'.

danzibr
2011-06-13, 09:24 PM
Yeah, you're right. Welcome to the light, friend.

Thank you, friend. :P

This realization makes me much more willing to use homebrew stuff on the forums. And do RAI instead of RAW. I was always more of a RAW person.

... and my post is so simple it's silly. Reminds me of a story from my old chem teacher. His daughter asked him why a ponytail was called a ponytail and he responded, "Because it looks like the TAIL OF A PONY!" (voice rising in realization)

Grendus
2011-06-13, 10:39 PM
I think the reason for the RAW is God attitude is that RAW is something that can be universally accepted. While a DM can say "no wizards in my campaign", they're less likely to say that than "no, you can't play a constitution based spellcaster, even if you were up all last night working on it."

Homebrew is almost always taken on a case by case basis. I personally don't like it, but then, I've seen way too many people try to pass homebrew that can cast miracle at level 5 or gets +80 to a skill before. Good homebrew, balanced for the party's level, is fine, but you have to be careful because of a lack of familiarity. Everybody knows what a wizard will do to the campaign (well, most people do). Nobody knows what a homebrewed monk can do until you play one.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-13, 10:48 PM
I think the reason for the RAW is God attitude is that RAW is something that can be universally accepted. While a DM can say "no wizards in my campaign", they're less likely to say that than "no, you can't play a constitution based spellcaster, even if you were up all last night working on it."

Homebrew is almost always taken on a case by case basis. I personally don't like it, but then, I've seen way too many people try to pass homebrew that can cast miracle at level 5 or gets +80 to a skill before. Good homebrew, balanced for the party's level, is fine, but you have to be careful because of a lack of familiarity. Everybody knows what a wizard will do to the campaign (well, most people do). Nobody knows what a homebrewed monk can do until you play one.

What about the way to get a wish from sacrifice in BoVD? That's perfectly RAW.

Also, it's not a +80 bonus, but one of the monk fixes (which is still only tier 3 or 4) on the forums gives you a bonus on balance, jump, and tumble equal to your fast movement bonus, and it isn't even close to OP, considering that wizards can fly at fifth level with zero cheese.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-13, 11:07 PM
Yup, and those classes may be playable. Or, the player could have grabbed the Lightning Warrior, and forever suffer the crushing lack of a familiar. There's no way to tell the brokenness without having a gander at it, since homebrew varies ridiculously.

So yeah, It's quite reasonable to start from the default position that homebrew is not allowed unless specifically reviewed and accepted. I do it all the time, and put some care into reviewing it, after that one game in which everyone heard the word "samurai" and didn't bother to examine the class that closely. FYI, the Tomb Samurai is broken as hell.

Yeah, RAW started as homebrew....but it got edited and reviewed. Sometimes even playtested. This didn't weed out all the mistakes, of course, but it did help. Not all homebrew gets this. See the D&D wiki for some examples of terribleness. And then, after publishing, the official books saw a LOT of use. So, the exploits for them are fairly available and well known. Generally findable with a quick google search. Things you can learn about without having them break your game are preferable to ones you don't see coming.

Lots of good reasons to use official material first, even if the designers of it are not special or better than anyone else.

Gamer Girl
2011-06-14, 12:14 AM
I wouldn't say that, the "rules are guidelines" spirit is still there. Really, the RAW is God attitude came with the internet.

Oh no it did not...it came from Wizards. Most D&D books before 3E were full of ''the rules are just suggestions'', and ''no game should use all the rules'' and ''make up your own stuff'' type statements typed throughout the books.

When 3E came along, that all disappeared. Now your 'best buddy' Wizards made the rules for you, and you needed them all. Take the 3.5 E introduction of ''when in doubt, stick to the basics(the Core rules), and have fun''. Note no rules are just 'suggestions' is anywhere.

Naturally this is all done to sell books.....

slaydemons
2011-06-14, 01:20 AM
Oh no it did not...it came from Wizards. Most D&D books before 3E were full of ''the rules are just suggestions'', and ''no game should use all the rules'' and ''make up your own stuff'' type statements typed throughout the books.

When 3E came along, that all disappeared. Now your 'best buddy' Wizards made the rules for you, and you needed them all. Take the 3.5 E introduction of ''when in doubt, stick to the basics(the Core rules), and have fun''. Note no rules are just 'suggestions' is anywhere.

Naturally this is all done to sell books.....

well I never read that part, I only played 3.5 and I thought like this "If I don't like this rule I don't have to have it, the dungeon master guide is just that a guide not a iron block of strict adherence. So that suggestion wasn't RAW but it was RAI, please note that this is the first time using both of those phrases in one sentence wooo happy days.

Talakeal
2011-06-14, 01:39 AM
. So, the exploits for them are fairly available and well known. Generally findable with a quick google search. Things you can learn about without having them break your game are preferable to ones you don't see coming.

Out of curiosity, I tried a quick google search for a list of common exploits and broken material, and found this:

http://board8.wikia.com/wiki/Bokonon_Lives%27s_Top_Ten_Most_Broken_Features_of_ Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Version_3.5

I thought some the playgrounders might get a chuckle out of it, I sure did.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-14, 01:42 AM
Aye, it's been posted before...it feels like a work of parody, but he did manage to peg one solidly powerful spell.

Ozreth
2011-06-14, 02:18 AM
Note no rules are just 'suggestions' is anywhere.

Well I've already said it once in this thread but I'll say it again. The rules as guidelines/can be changed/whatever paragraph IS in the 3.x DMG's. This was never lost. Maybe overshadowed a bit, but it is there (I'll check the page later). I also think it is in the Rules Compendium.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-06-14, 02:30 AM
Hmm, this inspires thoughts. Though probably not ones that you were hoping for with me.

Still, as Ozreth states, they are just suggestions, by what I can see, every RPG system encourages homebrew. I personally love homebrewed material, custom rules. I'd say often about half the stuff I use is either from my own head, or somewhere else "unofficial."

I'd say the most useful resource for me though, after learning the rules was the unearthed Arcana portion of the SRD, so many fun alternatives there for different kinds of players.

Yora
2011-06-14, 02:55 AM
Out of curiosity, I tried a quick google search for a list of common exploits and broken material, and found this:

http://board8.wikia.com/wiki/Bokonon_Lives%27s_Top_Ten_Most_Broken_Features_of_ Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Version_3.5

I thought some the playgrounders might get a chuckle out of it, I sure did.
Finally someone who understands that soulknives are completely overpowered...

:smallconfused:

The Big Dice
2011-06-14, 05:34 AM
Oh no it did not...it came from Wizards. Most D&D books before 3E were full of ''the rules are just suggestions'', and ''no game should use all the rules'' and ''make up your own stuff'' type statements typed throughout the books.

When 3E came along, that all disappeared. Now your 'best buddy' Wizards made the rules for you, and you needed them all. Take the 3.5 E introduction of ''when in doubt, stick to the basics(the Core rules), and have fun''. Note no rules are just 'suggestions' is anywhere.

Naturally this is all done to sell books.....
Long before then, you had Gary Gygax with his "My way or no way" attitude towards the rules. Seriously, the man was a tyrant about how AD&D should be played. Old Dragon magazine articles are filled with him telling the reader how it should be.

People look at the good old days through rose coloured glasses. And that's cool, even though nostalgia ain't what it used to be. But the truth is, the only real difference is, communities were more separated due to the lack of mass rapid communications. And of course there was only the letters page in a magazine instead of internet forums, so the turnaround of ideas tended to be much slower.

potatocubed
2011-06-14, 05:40 AM
Finally someone who understands that soulknives are completely overpowered...

Didn't you know? The soulknife's versatility transcends all reason.

Gibber.

Serpentine
2011-06-14, 06:02 AM
There's this wonderful paragraph in a 2nd Edition PHB or DMG that say something like "these rules are just a basic framework, you're encouranged to add rules for things not covered here or alter or even drop other rules that don't fit with the style of play you want to run".

In 3rd Ed. RAW is God!There is a section on changing the rules on page 14 of the DMG. It starts with "Beyond simply adjudicating, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That's okay."
On page 4 it says "You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action and ultimately, the fun."
On page 6 it says "...you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognise that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in the rulebook.", and "Often a situation will arise that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved."
And I'm sure there's plenty of other such lines dotted throughout the various books.
It might not be so encouraging, per se, but it's a long way from "RAW is God!"

ken-do-nim
2011-06-14, 06:08 AM
Long before then, you had Gary Gygax with his "My way or no way" attitude towards the rules. Seriously, the man was a tyrant about how AD&D should be played. Old Dragon magazine articles are filled with him telling the reader how it should be.

People look at the good old days through rose coloured glasses. And that's cool, even though nostalgia ain't what it used to be. But the truth is, the only real difference is, communities were more separated due to the lack of mass rapid communications. And of course there was only the letters page in a magazine instead of internet forums, so the turnaround of ideas tended to be much slower.

The whole point of AD&D, to Gary, was to have a consensus version of the rules. But he didn't intend for people to stop playing (white box) D&D, which he viewed as the version to customize to your heart's content.

danzibr
2011-06-14, 07:30 AM
Didn't you know? The soulknife's versatility transcends all reason.

Gibber.

Yeah, and Monkey Grip, plain and simple, destroys balanced combat. Man I wish I knew this sooner.

mathemagician
2011-06-14, 10:13 AM
I'm with Tyndmyr here. The rules as written did receive a lot of attention, playtesting, and editing from a variety of sources. Also worth mentioning is that it's their job and business thats on the line here. I don't fully trust myself to catch every detail, think of every possibility, etc, so I certainly don't trust some schmuck on the internet to have done so. My players are not interested in homebrew for this same reason, so I don't have to deal with this, fortunately.

So yes, in some misleading sense you can claim that RAW started as homebrew, but to me the clear distinction between the two is the editing and publishing process. I wouldn't take a soap-box derby racer to the highway and expect it to perform like a BMW.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-14, 11:13 AM
I'm with Tyndmyr here. The rules as written did receive a lot of attention, playtesting, and editing from a variety of sources. Also worth mentioning is that it's their job and business thats on the line here. I don't fully trust myself to catch every detail, think of every possibility, etc, so I certainly don't trust some schmuck on the internet to have done so. My players are not interested in homebrew for this same reason, so I don't have to deal with this, fortunately.

So yes, in some misleading sense you can claim that RAW started as homebrew, but to me the clear distinction between the two is the editing and publishing process. I wouldn't take a soap-box derby racer to the highway and expect it to perform like a BMW.

WotC never tested anything. If they did, they tested unoptimized sword 'n board fighters, trap rogues, healbot clerics, and blaster wizards. Just look at the class and race balance in 3.5.

Gamer Girl
2011-06-14, 12:33 PM
Long before then, you had Gary Gygax with his "My way or no way" attitude towards the rules. Seriously, the man was a tyrant about how AD&D should be played. Old Dragon magazine articles are filled with him telling the reader how it should be.

People look at the good old days through rose coloured glasses. And that's cool, even though nostalgia ain't what it used to be. But the truth is, the only real difference is, communities were more separated due to the lack of mass rapid communications. And of course there was only the letters page in a magazine instead of internet forums, so the turnaround of ideas tended to be much slower.

What? Well, I was around in them good old days and can tell you Gary Gygax was not like that. He was more ''here are some suggested rules to use, but use them or change them or don't use them...it's all up to you.'' Now, granted, Gary was the original Tyrant DM, not the 'best buddy' DM you get today where the DM is a slave to the rules and everyone is equal. But that is not the same thing.

The Tygre
2011-06-14, 01:07 PM
WotC never tested anything. If they did, they tested unoptimized sword 'n board fighters, trap rogues, healbot clerics, and blaster wizards. Just look at the class and race balance in 3.5.

This exactly. Look at all the holes in RAW; off the top of my head, you have monks, the gradual uselessness of melee, Pun Pun, any number of purely obscene prestige classes, the breakdown of the entire game around EL 15, the fallacy that is the CR system, and last but certainly not least, the bloated cancer of a magic system. If RAW is 'refined' or 'well-tested', then you can butter my butt and call me a biscuit.

The Big Dice
2011-06-14, 01:45 PM
What? Well, I was around in them good old days and can tell you Gary Gygax was not like that. He was more ''here are some suggested rules to use, but use them or change them or don't use them...it's all up to you.'' Now, granted, Gary was the original Tyrant DM, not the 'best buddy' DM you get today where the DM is a slave to the rules and everyone is equal. But that is not the same thing.
I guess I was reading different issues of Dragon back when they were in double digits and low hundreds for the issue number. 1st ed AD&D was presented as you played it the RPGA way, which was the Gygax way, or you didn't play it at all in the stuff I was reading. Unearthed Arcana was a book of optional rules, but according to the way things were presented, players had to abide by The Rules. And GMs had an entirely separate set of rules and standards they were supposed to adhere to.

shadow_archmagi
2011-06-14, 04:16 PM
WotC never tested anything. If they did, they tested unoptimized sword 'n board fighters, trap rogues, healbot clerics, and blaster wizards. Just look at the class and race balance in 3.5.

I'm actually kind of interested as to how long it took before those problems emerged with real groups.

I'm inclined to think that having a million players play the game for ten years and then use the internet to collaborate may have produced stronger builds than playtesting could reasonably be expected to.

danzibr
2011-06-14, 04:23 PM
This exactly. Look at all the holes in RAW; off the top of my head, you have monks, the gradual uselessness of melee, Pun Pun, any number of purely obscene prestige classes, the breakdown of the entire game around EL 15, the fallacy that is the CR system, and last but certainly not least, the bloated cancer of a magic system. If RAW is 'refined' or 'well-tested', then you can butter my butt and call me a biscuit.

Yeah... I get the feeling throwing in homebrew (as long as it's not clearly broken) won't really make the game more breakable. A Cleric 20 will probably stronger than most homebrews 20 (I'm talking base classes, of course).

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-14, 04:26 PM
I'm actually kind of interested as to how long it took before those problems emerged with real groups.

I'm inclined to think that having a million players play the game for ten years and then use the internet to collaborate may have produced stronger builds than playtesting could reasonably be expected to.

WotC should've tested wizards specialized in every school, as well as a generalist wizard that doesn't blast a lot. They also should've tested all caster parties and no caster parties.

Jay R
2011-06-14, 05:01 PM
Gary Gygax was just like, "Hmm, let's write some stuff up." I'm sure he talked to people and they got a little bit of balance going on, then published.

Actually, Dave Arneson wrote some stuff up. Then he talked to people like Gygax and it got published. While Gygax helped him write the first set of rules, role-playing and the first D&D game were begun by Dave Arneson.

Solaris
2011-06-14, 07:16 PM
I'm actually kind of interested as to how long it took before those problems emerged with real groups.

Six months of play, and that was with my group of internet-free players. I very quickly determined that it got boring fast if my wizard did anything flashy, and realized with a quickness that evocation was not the way to go for ultimate cosmic power. My brother played a fighter/sorcerer/dragon disciple that made every nonspellcaster in the party wonder why they'd bothered getting out of bed that morning. I'd say that if we could figure it out that quickly, WotC should have too.

Tavar
2011-06-14, 07:34 PM
WotC should've tested wizards specialized in every school, as well as a generalist wizard that doesn't blast a lot. They also should've tested all caster parties and no caster parties.

Heck, I'd settle for testing a wizard who used the majority of their spell list, instead of the minority that is blasting.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-14, 07:53 PM
Long before then, you had Gary Gygax with his "My way or no way" attitude towards the rules. Seriously, the man was a tyrant about how AD&D should be played. Old Dragon magazine articles are filled with him telling the reader how it should be.

Yeah. For all that I respect the hell out of the guy for getting the hobby started, Im not sure I would of actually enjoyed playing with the guy. There seems to be a theme to that attitude that stretches a ways back.



WotC never tested anything. If they did, they tested unoptimized sword 'n board fighters, trap rogues, healbot clerics, and blaster wizards. Just look at the class and race balance in 3.5.

Oh, they did test things...they didn't test them completely, no. Still, the average official book saw more testing and editing than the average homebrew, and is superior as a result. The very best of homebrew can be fantastic, but there is a great deal of drek you have to weed through before you find it. Most players don't bother to get on the internet to chat about D&D rules imbalances, in my experience. Plenty of them don't even understand basic class imbalance stuff, despite having played for quite some time.

You'll note that many splatbooks did attempt to remedy imbalances, to some small degree. I'd argue that the splatbooks in 3.5 actually have a lower ratio of broken stuff than core, so they certainly learned as they went.